Loading...
1996-03-04 CC Agenda/PacketTVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 4, 1996 7:00 PM 7:00 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/ADOPT AGENDA (Mayor/Clerk/Council) 7 : 05 2. MINUTES (council) a. Regular City Council Meeting - February 5, 1996 b. Special City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996 C. Joint Meeting with Frankfort Town Board - February 12, 1996 7 :10 3. AUDITING CLAIMS (council) 7:15 4. CITIZEN FORUM - 10 Minute Limit 7 : 2 5 5 . CONSENT AGEMA [ * ] (Council) a. Financial Statement - January & February b. Follow -Up Sheet as of February 5, 1996 C. Schedule 1996 Board of Review meeting for Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at the Albertville City Hall at 7:00 PM d. WWTF Operation Report January 1996 (PSG) e. Accept Joint Powers Board minutes - January 22, 1996 f. MMUA Membership - Letter g. MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium - Letter h. Accept pledged security from Highland Bank effective January 10, 1996 i. WWTF - Equipment Inventory - Accept/Approve j. Approve 1996 membership in Wright County Mayors' Association - Dues $150 k. RESOLUTION #1996-15 (RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF KEYS FOR THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE) 1. RESOLUTION #1996-8 (APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEES) M. RESOLUTION #1996-9 (ESTABLISHMENT OF VACATION LEAVE) n. RESOLUTION #1996-10 (ESTABLISHMENT OF SICK LEAVE) o. RESOLUTION #1996-17 (RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR DRUGS AND ALCOHOL) P. RESOLUTION # 1996-16 (A RESOLUTION MAKING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DETACHMENT/ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITIES OF ALBERTVILLE AND OTSEGO q. Consolidation/Annexation Appeal/1996 Detachment/Annexation - Status (Attorney Schnitz) r. Consolidation Commission Resolution S. ORDINANCE 1996-3 (AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 300, 400, AND 2700 OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE (1988-12) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR REZONINGS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND/OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY) t. ORDINANCE #1996-4 (AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION A- 300 OF THE ALBERTVILLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PLATS OR SUBDIVISIONS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY) 7:35 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition for Local Improvements Water - Accept b. Petition for Local Improvements Sewer - Accept • C. RESOLUTION #1996-13 (RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND ESTIMATED COST) d. RESOLUTION #1996-14 (RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND ESTIMATED COST) e. Parking on City Streets - One Side Only (Councilmenter Anderson) f. Personnel Committee Report 1) Public Works Coordinator position 2) Maintenance Worker II position g. Public Works Committee Report 1) Parks/City Mowing - Contracting 2) Snow Removal - Contracting h. Annexation Appeal - Consider Special Counsel (Attorney Schmitz) i . Frankfort Drainage (City Engineer) 8 : 00 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Realtor Bids for Sale of Fire Hall Site - Authorize b. Consider offer on water tower lot (Century 21) C. Concept Plan - Parkside 3rd Addition (Keno) d. Concept Plan - Summerfield Addition (Little Mountain) e. Northwest Drainage Study (City Eng.) • f. CSAH 37/19 Intersection Realignment - Status (City Eng.) g. Contour Mapping - Request for map on two -foot . contour basis (City Eng. ) h. Detachment/Annexation proceedings - Permission to appear before Municipal Board (City Eng. ) i . Sewer rates - Consider revising (City Eng. ) j. ORDINANCE #1996-5 (AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET SEWER ACCESS CHARGES AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES, AND DESIGNATING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH CHARGES) (City Attorney & Engineer) k. Local Effort TIF (City Attorney & Administrator) 1. EDA Vacancies - Authorization to fill the positions M. Cable Franchise Fees $4,283.73 - Consider uses n. Schmitz & Ophaug Check #9965 ($2,314.00) - Approval o. Establish Copier Procurement Committee P. Approve Investment Schedule for approximately $500 , 000 (Finance C vdttee) q . Fire Truck Tanker - Surplus & Sale (Fire Dept.) r. Pager Public Works Department - Authorize (PW Cam.) S. 1979 Hustler Model 285 w/cab - Surplus & Sale (PW Camnittee) t. Piper Jaffrey Settlement - First Distribution $10 , 253.46 (Finance Cam dttee) 11:15 8. COUNCIL REPORTS (council) • 11: 30 9. ADJOURNMENT (council) • 3 ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL !larch 4, 19% Albertville City Hall 7:00 PM PRESENT: Mayor Michael Potter, Councilmembers Sharon Anderson, Curt Muyres, Duane Berning, and John Vetsch, City Administrator Garrison Hale, City Clerk Linda Houghton, City Engineer Peter Carlson, and City Attorney Mike Couri Mayor Potter called the regular meeting of the Albertville City Council to order. The agenda was amended as follows: (1) Add Item 7u - Accept petition for annexation from Roman and Donna Becker (2) Add Item 7v - Accept petition for annexation from Michael and Heidi Potter (3) Add Item 7w - Set public hearing to consider annexation request from Roman and Donna Becker (4) Add Item 7x - Set public hearing to consider annexation request from Michael and Heidi Potter Berning made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 5, 19966, regular Council meeting with the following amendments: (1) Page 1, Paragraph 6 to state "Vetsch seconded the motion." (2) Page 2, Paragraph 3 to state "Vetsch made a motion to accept Psyk's 6th Addition." (3) Page 2, Paragraph 3 to state "Vetsch made a motion to accept Westwind 3rd Addition." Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. The minutes of the Special City Council meeting on February 12, 1996, were amended to state Councilmembers Berning and Muyres were absent. Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 12, 1996, Joint Meeting with Frankfort Township as presented. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. Berning made a motion to approve payment of Check Vs 1524- 1534 and Check Vs 10004-10033 as presented. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Rod D'Aigle addressed the Council regarding his petition to change the name of Mud Lake. He would like input from the Council and residents for a new name. Hamburg Lake has been suggested as an option, reflecting the name of the original townsite. Staff was ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 2 of 11 directed to put a request in the local newspaper for suggestions on a new name and to also contact the schools to get student input and suggestions. Councilmember Berning asked that Items 5p and 5q be removed from the consent agenda and added to the discussion under Item 6h. Muyres made a motion to approve the Financial Statements for the months of January and February as presented. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to approve the Follow -Up sheet from the February 5, 1996, meeting as presented. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to schedule the 1996 Board of Review meeting for Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at 7:00 PM. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to accept January 1996 Wastewater Operation Report as presented. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to accept January 22, 1996, Joint Powers Board minutes as presented. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion authorizing the City's membership in the MMUA in the amount of $200 annual dues. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt the MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium policies and procedures and including them with the City of Albertville Personnel Policy as amended May 2, 1994. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to accept and approve the Wastewater Treatment Facility's inventory list as prepared by PSG. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to approve 1996 membership in the Wright County Mayors Association with annual dues of $150. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-15 titled RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF KEYS FOR THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 3 of 11 Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-8 titled APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEES. Anderson seconded the motion. Al voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-9 titled ESTABLISHMENT OF VACATION LEAVE. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-10 titled ESTABLISHMENT OF SICK LEAVE. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-17 titled RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR DRUGS AND ALCOHOL. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to accept the Minnesota Municipal Board's Resolution dated February 16, 1996, appointing Ken Tiernan, Curt Muyres, Michael Potter, Sharon Anderson, Shawn Eastman, Daniel Robertus, LeRoy Berning and John Vetsch as Albertville's representatives on the Consolidation Committee. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt ORDINANCE #1996-3 titled AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 300, 400, 500, AND 2700 OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE (1988-12) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR REZONINGS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND/OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to adopt ORDINANCE #1996-4 titled AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION A-300 OF THE ALBERTVILLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PLATS OR SUBDIVISIONS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Vetsch made a motion to accept the Petition for Local Improvements requesting that the property on the North side of Interstate 94 starting from Co. Rd. 37 to MacIver Avenue NE to 70th Street NE be improved by the construction of water lines. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. Vetsch made a motion to accept the Petition for Local Improvements requesting that the property on the North side of Interstate 94 starting from MacIver Avenue NE to 70th Street NE be ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 4 of 11 improved by the construction of sewer lines. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Because City Engineer Peter Carlson was not yet present, the Council opted to delay discussion of the Feasibility Reports for the petitioned -for water and sewer improvements until Carlson is present. Councilmember Anderson has requested the Council consider parking on one side of residential streets only. She feels it is dangerous for children with cars on two sides of a snow -narrowed street. She reported she has also had requests from residents to bring up a discussion of one -side only parking. Anderson made a motion directing the administrator to review the on -street parking ordinance regarding one side only parking and take the information to the Planning & Zoning Commission for consideration. Berning seconded the motion. Anderson and Berning voted aye. Vetsch, Muyres and Potter voted no. The motion failed. The Personnel Committee reported that need for space, for additional equipment for maintaining streets, and for personnel are areas of great concern. The Committee supports the idea of holding off filling of the Maintenance Worker II position until these issues can be addressed and to contract snowplowing and mowing until the issues are resolved. Muyres made a motion to authorize the Personnel Committee to prepare a cost analysis of keeping the services in-house vs. contracting. The analysis should include all costs, including labor, capital improvements, etc. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Personnel Committee will consider the need for the Public Works Coordinator position and/or a Maintenance Worker II position once the cost analysis has been completed. The Council discussed RESOLUTION #1996-13 with City Engineer Peter Carlson and City Attorney Mike Couri. Attorney Couri explained that if developers request a feasibility study, the landowners generally pay for the study. Carlson explained that the feasibility study for the water extension would be the bigger of the two items and the cost of the study could be anywhere from .5%- 1.5% of the construction costs, or approximately $2,800. Anderson made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #1996-13 titled RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND ESTIMATED COSTS for the water extension project, subject to the engineer's providing cost estimates of the study and subject to the landowners' agreement to pay those costs. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 5 of 11 Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #1996-14 titled RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND ESTIMATED COSTS for the petitioned sewer project, subject to the engineer's providing cost estimates of the study and subject to the landowners' agreement to pay those costs. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Council reviewed the letter dated February 26, 1996, from Attorney Peter Schmitz regarding the status of the consolidation issue, the annexation appeal and the 1996 detachment/annexation petitions. The Council concurred that detailed minutes of the Consolidation Commission meetings will be sent to Attorney Schmitz, that Attorney Schmitz will not actually participate in the appeal process, and that Attorney Schmitz will be only a sideline player in the 1996 detachment/annexation petitions unless further directed by the Council. Muyres made a motion to table RESOLUTION #1996-16 titled A RESOLUTION MAKING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DETACHMENT/ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITIES OF ALBERTVILLE AND OTSEGO until or unless it becomes necessary to appoint legal counsel at a later date. Berning seconded the motion. Muyres, Berning, Anderson and Vetsch voted aye. Potter voted no. The motion carried. Carlson reported he has been in contact with both Laurie Vanderheider of MNDOT and with Dan Lais of the DNR concerning the Frankfort drainage problem. MNDOT wants the drainage problem correct this year and will forward a letter to Frankfort Township explaining MNDOT's position, as a major freeway maintenance project witll take place in the summer of 1996. Muyres made a motion directing City Attorney Couri to notify Frankfort Township via letter of the following: (1) The City of Albertville's position on a solution to the problem is that replacing the 8" the line with an 18" line is essential. (2) The City of Albertville will pay one half the cost of replacing the 8" line with an 18" line, less the 25% contribution from MNDOT. (3) If Frankfort Township takes no action within 30 days from the date of the letter, the City of Albertville will proceed to file a petition with the courts. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Council reviewed the two proposals from realtors to list the Barthel Industrial Drive site. Both Land for Sale, Inc., represented by Laurie E. Karnes, and Burnet Realty, represented by ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 6 of 11 Donald D. Stoner, charge a 10% commission. Because Laurie Karnes has recently sold commercial property in the City, Muyres made a motion to contract with Land for Sale, Inc. of Maple Grove, MN, to list the Barthel Industrial Drive site for a 12-month period. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Council reviewed the contingent offer for the sale of the water tower lot. The offer is for $27,500 and includes the following additional terms on the Vacant Land Addendum: 32. Seller will provide and pay for sewer and water lines to be stubbed into the property. 33. Seller agrees to pay for extra footings if needed under garage as per the building inspector. 34. Seller to pay for removal of unforeseen debris buried on property and filled with proper compacted soil as per building inspector. 35. Lot is to be guaranteed buildable. 36. Closing to be on or before April 30, 1996, providing the buyers have sold their home at 217 Oak Street, St. Michael, MN, by March 30, 1996. 37. Earnest money to be returned if buyers cannot perform. The Council discussed making a counter-offer eliminating #32-37. Vetsch made a motion to reject the offer and to hold firm on the established price and terms. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Kent Roessler, of Kenco Development, reviewed his concept plan for a golf course and single and multi -family housing for the Council. Concept approval has been denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission because of smaller lot sizes and annexation questions. Roessler proposes that the entire 350 acres be zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow for both the golf course and the mixed housing densities/lot sizes. He stated that it is not feasible financially for him to construct a golf course without having the additional 30 lots to sell to pay the costs. Roessler introduced two of his associates on the project -- Garrett Gill of Williams & Gill, a golf course architectural firm, and John Valories, of Effective Golf Course Systems, a golf course management company. Gill and Valories both answered questions from the Council concerning the design and management of the proposed golf course. Roessler further explained that he is agreeable to reserving the property along County Road 19 currently zoned B-3 for commercial use for a period of ten years, provided that if the property has not been sold for commercial development during that time period, he can proceed to develop the property into multi- family housing units, not to exceed 136 units. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 7 of 11 John Darkenwald told the Council that one of the problems he has experienced with selling commercial properties in the City is the lack of density in the City. He feels that more "rooftops" must be in before commercial development will occur. City Attorney Couri advised the Council it could approve the concept plan, contingent upon the annexation to the city of the portion of the plan (approximately 59.6 acres) currently lying in Frankfort Township. Councilmember Vetsch suggested that the concept plan be sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. He does not recommend sacrificing smaller lots for a golf course. He prefers to see the area zoned R-1 with minimum lot sizes of 12,500 square feet and no golf course. Councilmember Muyres stated he has no problem with the varied mixture housing as presented, as long all lots average 12,500 square feet. Mayor Potter would prefer less lots with a 75' frontage. Roessler stated that the 75' frontage lots are mixed into the first tier street and vary in size between 75'-80' frontages. Councilmember Muyres recommended that Roessler play with the lot sizes to see if he can create fewer 75' frontage lots. Vetsch made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-18 titled RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PARKSIDE 3RD ADDITION AND CEDAR CREEK GOLF COURSE AS PRESENTED BY KENCO, INC. Anderson seconded the motion. Vetsch and Anderson voted aye. Berning, Muyres and Potter voted no. The motion failed. Councilmember Muyres recommended a compromise. He wants up- front assurance that the golf course will be constructed with the Frankfort portion annexed to the city and a reduction in the number of lots with a 75' frontage. Potter indicated a reduction of 15 lots with a 75' frontage would be agreeable. Administrator Hale pointed out the list of items Roessler will need for approval, including a liquor license and a billboard advertising the golf course and housing development. Potter made a motion to refer the issue back to the Planning & Zoning Commission recommending they consider the compromises _ suggested and address the list of items that the development will require. Muyres seconded the motion. Potter, Muyres and Berning voted aye. Vetsch voted no. Anderson abstained. The motion carried. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 8 of 11 Anderson made a motion to approve the concept plan submitted for the Summerfield Addition as presented. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Engineer Peter Carlson presented the Northwest Drainage Study relating to the realignment of CSAH 37/19. Property owners affected by right-of-way requirements all have a degree of concern over drainage --Barthel wants to fill some of the wetland area on his property; Darkenwalds want to eliminate a detention pond that may be required on their commercial property; L & D Trucking wants the ditch moved to the lot line; and Savitiski wants the ditch behind his lot replaced with piping to give him more parking space. Carlson proposes that 1.6 acres of the Barthel wetland be filled and mitigated with a detention pond that outlets into the existing wetlands. Storm sewer pipe would be installed to carry the drainage. Carlson estimates construction costs of approximately $135,000, plus engineering, legal, and bonding costs. The costs could be assessed to benefitting properties. John Darkenwald indicated he is willing to pay a fair share of the costs if the county roads are realigned. Carlson indicated the next step on the drainage issue is to set a public hearing, probably tied together with the public hearing to be conducted for the CSAH 37/19 improvement project. Potter made a motion to accept the construction estimate of $135,000 for the Northwest Drainage Study as presented by Carlson. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-24 titled A RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER THE PROPOSED NORTHWEST DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND THE ESTIMATED COST. The study will include a description of the project, cost estimates and maps outlining the project. Bernina seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-23 titled A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED NORTHWEST DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, scheduling the public hearing on April 15, 1996, at 7:00 PM. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. Carlson updated the Council on the progress of the CSAH 37/19 realignment project. The County is currently designing the project and anticipate July 1, 1996, as start of construction. Carlson discussed having a two -foot contour map of approximately 3,580 acres of the city completed. Cost per acre is $5-$6, for a total of approximately $20,000. Carlson suggested the ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 9 of 11 City could recoup some of the cost by selling the maps to potential developers. Muyres made a motion to table discussion of the two -foot contour map indefinitely. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion to allow Engineer Peter Carlson to appear before the Municipal Board, if requested, at no cost to the City. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Attorney Couri and Engineer Carlson discussed the need to review both the SAC charges and the sewer rates. Both consultants feel a cash flow analysis of both charges should be done. Anderson made a motion authorizing staff to prepare cash flow analysis and report the results at the May meeting. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to adopt ORDINANCE #1996-5 titled AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET SEWER ACCESS CHARGES AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES, AND DESIGNATING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH CHARGES. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mayor Potter stepped down from the Council and Acting Mayor Berning conducted the meeting. The Council reviewed the memo from City Attorney Couri dated February 28, 1996, in which he discusses a local effort TIF. Unlike a standard TIF where the city takes 100% of the increase in taxes on a parcel of land that is developed under the program, a formal TIF is never established, but the city, county and school voluntarily agree to dedicate all or a portion of the increase in taxes from the developed property to help pay for infrastructure, etc. Couri recommended once statutory authority of the county and school district to enter into a local effort TIF is confirmed, a committee should be appointed to approach the school district and the county regarding the concept in general. Each project could then be approved on a case by case basis. Anderson made a motion authorizing Attorney Couri to contact either Steve Bubel of Kennedy & Graven or Mary Ippel of Briggs & Morgan to research the statutory authority of the county and school district to enter into a local effort TIF and to report the findings back to the Council. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mayor Potter resumed his duties as mayor. Berning made a motion to table appointing two additional EDA members at this time. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 10 of 11 Muyres made a motion to apply the $4,283.73 franchise fee payment from Jones Intercable toward payment of special counsel legal services. Potter seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion to authorize payment of Check #9965 in the amount of $2,314.00 to Schmitz & Ophaug. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to appoint Administrator Hale and City Clerk Houghton to the Copier Procurement Committee. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion to approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee to reinvest approximately $562,000 in three month Treasury bills and to renew two certificates of deposit maturing this month for one year at Highland Bank at 5.4% interest. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion authorizing the sale of the Fire Department's old tanker truck as presented. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion affirming the Personnel Committee's decision to lease a pager for the Public Works Department. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to authorize the sale of the City's 1979 Hustler Model 285 with cab. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter made a motion directing the Finance Committee to determine how to allocate the first distribution of the Piper Jaffrey settlement in the amount of $10,253.46. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Muyres made a motion to accept the petition from Roman and Donna Becker to annex 59.6 acres of property into the City of Albertville from Frankfort Township. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mayor Potter removed himself from the Council. Muyres made a motion to accept the petition from Michael and Heidi Potter to annex 16.84 acres of property into the City of Albertville from Frankfort Township. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to schedule a public hearing to consider the Becker and Potter annexation petitions for April 15, 1996, at 7:00 PM. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye. ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1996 Page 11 of 11 Mayor Potter returned to his duties as mayor. Anderson made a motion directing the clerk to draft RESOLUTION #1996-25 congratulating the STMA High School Wrestling Team on their State Class A Wrestling Championship. A congratulatory message will also be placed on the city sign. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye. Potter reported that there will be a town baseball team this year for the first time since the 1960's. Practice time may be scheduled for the ball fields. Councilmember Anderson reported that the curfew ordinance is being drafted at this time and will be ready for Council consideration in April. Berning made a motion to adjourn at 11:55 PM. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. _ X).", J. Michael Potter, Mayor Linda Houghton, Cl UPCOMING MEETINGS/IMPORTANT DATES March 12 Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting 7:00 Hsi March 18 Special Council Meeting (if required) 7:00 Hd March 25 Finance Committee Meeting (Preliminary 5:001M Audit Report) March 26 Special Planning & Zoning Meeting 7:OOEM (Comp Plan) March xx Consolidation Commission LtIT04n April 1 Regular City Council Meeting 7:001M April 9 Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting 7:00 H4 April 10 1996 Local Board of Review 7:00 EM April 15 Special Council Meeting (if required) 7:00 HMI April 22 Finance Committee Meeting 5:00 Hd April 23 Special Planning & Zoning Meeting 7:00EM (if required) April xx Consolidation Commission U-kn,ti 0 w • February 26, 1996 TO: City Council FROM: G.L. Hale, City Administrator SUBJ: Council Agenda Items There are several items on the agenda that you will not find supporting written documentation. This is due to the fact we are seeking discussion of the topic and ideas. We may not request any action or seek a motion to perform a task and report back to you. Please do not spend time more than thinking about topics not supported by documentation. Your discussion is our goal. kftR SP ICE erTY Feb �'�� ��• ��cIL Fran - r�G kfort T _ roar? I2, 149 own Nall 6 PRESENT ron Treasure" Mike Potter, Linda city Adminihtonstrator Councilme ABSENT; Counc9lmem ator GarrisonblialeJaohn nd tiers B Mayor potter City Council to called License for the order for and Alcohol consortium l Anderson discussion of membership in aye. erning & Vetsch W40 6:20 PM Vetsch, and C1ty Clerk - e made a motion to the MMUA Drug and AlcoholeTestthe agenda by adding nt the MMUA. lated Vetsch seconded the motion• a� Allvoted Anderson made a motion to approve the Application for Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor for the Albertville Jaycees at the St. Albert's Parish Center on March 2,1 996, from 6:00 PM until midnight. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Anderson made a motion to approve 1996 membership in the Minnesota Municipal Utilities at a cost of $200. Further, to pay the initial fee of $50 to the MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium with authorization for payment with Check i#9977 to the MMUA in the amount of $250.00. Vetsch seconded the motion. Ail voted aye. Anderson made a motion to adjourn the special meeting at 6:23 PM. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Michael Potter, Mayor Linda Houghton, Clerk amemoo JOINT ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND FRANKFORT TOWN BOARD SPECIAL MEETING February 12, 1996 Frankfort Town Hall 6:30 PM PRESENT: (ALBERTVILLE) Mayor Mike Potter, Councilmembers John Vetsch, and Sharon Anderson, City Administrator Garrison Hale and City Clerk -Treasurer Linda Houghton (FRANKFORT) Frankfort Town Board Chairman Bob Turnquist, Supervisors Mark Daleiden, Greg Vetsch, Andy Block, and Tom Hagerty, Town Clerk Sharry Berning, Town Engineer Peter Raatikka and Town Attorney Bill Goodrich ABSENT: Councilmembers Berning and Muyres The joint meeting was called to order for the purpose of discussing joint drainage concerns and annexation issues. Supervisor Mark Daleiden reported that the drainage committee consisting of Councilmembers Vetsch and Berning from Albertville and Supervisors Block and himself had met. They basically decided to place a manhole where the 18" the line connects with the 8" line and to clean out the ditch at the end of the 8" line. Also under consideration was cleaning of the culverts in the area. Daleiden stted the levels measured indicated that the water level is approximately three feet below the Ordinary High Water mark. Supervisor Block explained that he had spoken to both the DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. Both parties indicated that the area is draining as it was designed. Chairman Turnquist reported that Kerry Sexton of the Wright Soil and Water Conversation District has also visited the area and believes the area is being drained properly. The Council and the Board reviewed the memo dated January 29, 1996, from Albertville's City Engineer Peter Carlson in which he states that the only solution to solve the drainage problem is to restore the drain title line to its previous condition, i.e. an IS - inch tile line from the wetland to the outlet. Since nothing can be done until spring, the Board and Council agreed to delay any decision until later. A discussion was held on the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation drafted by Frankfort Town Attorney Bil'. Goodrich. JOINT MEETING ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL FRANKFORT TOWN BOARD February 12, 1996 Page 2 of 2 = Councilmember Anderson is opposed to Item 9 regarding no further annexations for a period of ten years. She stated that although she is unaware of Albertville's desire to annex land at this time, she would not support committing future Councils to a no -annexation policy. City Administrator Hale stated for the group that with the Cities of Albertville, Otsego and Frankfort Township working on various phases of Comprehensive Plan updates, it would not be wise for Albertville to commit to a non -annexation policy. Hale went on to say the State of Minnesota (Municipal Board) is reducing the number of governmental units through the process of consolidation/annexations with the goal of more -efficient delivery of services. The future, as well as the need for Frankfort Township, is seriously in question. Hale further added that one of the reasons that legislation is being considered to expand the boundaries of the Metropolitan Council is to provide continuity in planning and service delivery. Further, they desire to eliminate the lack of inter -community cooperation, such as that which is found in the eastern areas of Wright County. Mayor Potter explained he is opposed to Item #8 as detailed regarding future taxes He would not object to this item being spelled out exactly as state statute reads regarding shared taxes. Potter further stated the City's policy has been to service only properties within its corporate limits with sewer. He pointed out that if the City did agree to service the Green Haven development, the costs of the sewer project would likely exceed the assessable benefit per lot and the city or the township would be required to absorb the excess costs. City Administrator Hale told the group that this meeting was actually premature, since the City has not formally received a petition to annex the 80 acres of property to the city. The Planning Commission is meeting tomorrow evening (Tuesday, February 13) to discuss a concept plan for the property in question, as well as properly currently within the City limits. It was the consensus that information received at the meeting will be made available to Frankfort Township. Supervisor Daleiden made a motion to adjourn the joint meeting at 7: 15 PM. Supervisor Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Michael Potter, Mayor Linda Houghton, Clerk CI?? OF ALBMTVILLS BILLS TO BE PAID March 4, 1995 Check No. Vendor Reason Amount P1524 Anderson, Sharon Council 161.61 P1525 Berning, Daune Council 87.73 P1526 Berning, LeRoy P&Z 18.47 P1527 Brown, Jim P&Z 18.47 P1528 Fraser, Rod EDA 18.47 P1529 Larson, Howard P&Z 18.47 P1530 Muyres, Curt Council 87.73 P1531 Potter, Michael Council 170.85 P1532 Scherer, Pete RDA 18.47 P1533 Vetsch, Donatus P&Z 18.47 P1534 Vetsch, John Council 87.73 10004 Affordable Sanitation Ice Rink 58.58 10005 Crow River News Employment Ad 54.90 10006 Danko Emergency Eq. G1asMaster Tool 122.48 10007 First Trust Fiscal Fees 795.00 10008 Gov't Training Service Clerk's Conference 150.00 10009 Hackenmueller's Gas/Supplies 97.27 10010 Harvest Printing Letterhead/Stationery 97.47 10011 Highland Bank Federal Taxes 2,470.86 10012 KDV 1995 Audit 3,000.00 10013 LMCIT Boiler/Machinery 400.00 10014 League of MN Cities Subscriptions 144.00 10015 MinnComm Pager Service 18.46 10016 MN Copy Systems 10017 MN Dept. of Revenue 10018 City of Monticello 10019 NAC, Inc. 10020 Office Max 10021 Post Office 10022 Radzwill & Couri 10023 Rogers, Mike 10024 Russell's Lock & Key 10025 Scharber & Sons 10026 SEE, Inc. 10027 Smoke -Eaters 10028 Unlimited Electric 10029 Valerius, Bill 10030 Vetsch, Donatus 10031 Welter's Inc. 10032 Wr. Co. Highway Dept. 10033 Wr. Co. Treasurer Copier Use 139.70 State Taxes 406.61 Animal Control 162.00 Planning Services 3,536.82 Office Supplies 290.11 Postage 300.00 February Legal 1,680.26 Fire Dept. Mileage 18.85 Fire Hall/PW/WWTF 976.42 Repair Husteler Tire 50.67 Engineering 1,031.90 F. D. Subscriptions 92.00 Hockey Lights/CH 260.33 Reimbursement 8.00 Planning Class 90.00 Repair Links 10.12 Salt/Sand & Cables 431.84 Assessment List 14.16 TOTAL BILLS $17,615.28 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 0-*.. PREAUTHDRIZED CHECKS ISSUED January 27 - February 28, 1996 Check No. Vendor Reason Amount 9972 Mike Rogers Reissue Ch#9915 120.00 Payroll Period Ending__2 2 P1506 Gary 997.01 P1507 Linda 804.00 P1508 Ken 1,010.27 January Payroll - Officials P1509 Anderson, Sharon 124.67 P1510 Berning , Duane 106.20 P1511 Berning, LeRoy 18.47 P1512 Brown, Jim 18.47 P1513 Fraser, Rod 18.47 P1514 Larson, Howard 18.47 P1515 Muyres, Curt 124.67 P1516 Potter, Michael 189.32 P1517 Scherer, Pete 18.47 P1518 Vetsch, Donatus 18.47 P1519 Vetsch, John 106.20 P1520 Brandt, Merlyn Part -Time Help 298.58 9973 Highland Bank Federal Taxes 2,683.82 9974 MN Dept. of Revenue State Taxes 487.18 9975 PERA 1/20 - 2/2 358.36 9976 USCM Midwest Deferred Comp 127.00 9977 MMUA Membership Fees 250.00 p_4yrol l Period .Ending _2116 P1521 Gary 997.01 P1522 Linda 804.00 P1523 Ken 897.01 9978 American Bank 89 GO Ref.Bond 5,492.50 9979 D. M. Johnson Westwind 3rd 1,030.17 9980 Delta Dental March Dental 68.10 68.10 Diversified Inspection Inspections 5,776.25 PON 9982 DJ's Total Home Care 9983 First National Bank 9984 First Trust 9985 Franklin Outdoor Sign 9986 Highland Bank 9987 Highland Bank 9988 Highland Bank 9989 Medica 9990 Minnegasco 9991 MMUA 9992 Monticello Animal Control 9993 NSP 9994 NSP 9995 PERA Life Ins. 9996 PERA 9997 Pitney Bowes 9998 PSG 9999 US West Cellular 10000 United Telephone 10001 USCM Midwest 10002 Wr. Co. Sheriff's Dept. 10003 Wright Recylcing Jaycee Donation 62.55 91A GO Imp Bond 6,286.50 93C GO Ref. Bond 18,678.75 Jaycee Donation 148.75 91B GO Bond 2,100.00 92 GO Ref Bond 17 ,475.00 94 GO Imp Bond 43,477.50 Health/Life/Disab. 559.26 Service 645.96 Random Pool Fee 15.00 Jan 96 Service 34.00 Street Lights 2,054.05 Electric Service 603.11 Payroll Deduction 12.00 Pay Period 2/2-2/16 343.73 Postage Lease 176.88 March 96 7 , 519.16 Fire Dept. 15.61 Service 320.91 Payroll Deductions 127.00 January 96 Police 5,018.75 January Service 931.50 TOTAL $129,569.21 CITY OF "I ITJ FINAMIAT Sl6 December 28, 1995 - Januar= 31, 1996 Beginning Cash Balance December 28, 1995 INCOME (Dec. 29 - Jan. 31) Amusement Licenses 150.00 Cigarette Licenses 200.00 Donation - Jaycees 800.00 Interest (Jan.) 334.38 Loan Payment - Fraser 689.06 Park Deposit 100.00 Park Rent 200.00 Reimbursement 144.04 Sewer License 45.00 Sewer/Storm Water 29,290.29 Title Search 30.00 Wr. Co. - Final Stlmt 31,155.92 Misc. 50.00 TOTAL INCOME EXPENSES (Dec. 29 - Jan. 31) Preapproved Checks 316,673.52 Bank Charges(Deposit Slips) 31.90 TOTAL EXPENSES 63,322.76 316,705.42 $425,009.06 Ending Cash Balance January 31, 1996 $171,626.40 CD #9226 - Alb. Development Corp. matures 2/9/96 CD #10190 - matures 3/1/96 @ 7.0% CD #10203 - matures 3/29/96 @ 7.0% CD #8579 - matures 6//25/96 @ 4.84% CD #10412 - matures 6/28/96 @ 4.45% (Fire Dept.) Dain Bosworth U S Treasury Bill (matures 2/1/96) U S Coupon Treasury Strips TOTAL INVESTMENTS Money Markey Savings Acct. (1/31/96) 6,990.28 113,498.98 377,991.90 173,644.86 14,000.00 558,852.80 501,360.97 $1,746,339.79 $600 , 75 6.12 CITY OF ALBERTVITT FINANCIAL STRTEMM Februar= 1 - Februar? 28, 1996 Beginning Cash Balance January 31, 1996 INCOME (Feb. 1 - Feb. 28) Beer Licenses 10.00 Building Permits 15.50 Franchise Fee 4,283.73 Investment Income 253.71 Interest (Jan.) 468.45 Loan Payment - Fraser 689.06 Piper -Jaffrey Lawsuit 10,253.46 Planning Fees 4,100.00 Recycling Incentive 1,306.00 Sewer/Storm Water 3,172.65 Title Search 50.00 Misc. 88.00 TOTAL INCOME Transfer - Savings Void Check #9915 EXPENSES (Jan. 30 - Feb. 27) Check #9929 - 9964 & V a 9966 -9971 (Approved 2/5/96) 109,477.57 Preapproved Checks 129,569.11 (List Attached) TOTAL EXPENSES 24,790.56 100,000.00 120.00 239,046.78 $171,626.40 Ending Cash Balance February 28, 1996 $ 57,490.28 CD #10190 - matures 3/1/96 @ 7.0% CD #9226 - Alb. Development Corp. matures 3/9/96 CD #10203 - matures 3/29/96 @ 7.0% CD #8579 - matures 6//25/96 @ 4.84% CD #10412 - matures 6/28/96 @ 4.45% Dain Bosworth U S Treasury Bill (matures 3/7/96) U S Coupon Treasury Strips TOTAL INVESTMENTS Money Markey Savings Acct. (1/31/96) 113,498.98 7,014.87 377,991.90 173,644.86 14 ,000.00 561,995.29 501,360.97 $1,749,506.87 $600,756.12 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE FOLLOW-UP SHEET As of February 5, 1996 DATE _ACTION TO BE TAKEN 1/95 Renumbering Ordinances In Process 5/95 CMIF - Community Partners Program Ongoing 6/95 Urban Service Area (Part of Comp Plan) Ongoing 7/95 Personnel - Ordinance/Policies Ongoing 7/95 Comp Plan & Zoning Map Ongoing 7/95 Cost sharing County Roads 19/37 Ongoing 7/95 Curfew Ordinance In Process 7/95 Bank Reconciliation Form In Pro- cess 08/95 Cohen Development (Commercial) In Process 09/95 Water Tower Lot Sale (Residential) In Process 09/95 Development of Westwind Park Ongoing 09/95 Negotiate temporary easement rights with Dennis On Hold Fehn 09/95 Ordinance re: sump pump drainage On Hold 09/95 Review Sewer Ordinance for MPCA compliance On Hold requirements 10/95 Discuss placement of mailboxes on sidewalk with PERSON ALdmn. / camcil MsTi:ers Persrn- ry__lO3 r Attee/ Staff/ oarril P&Z/ Caric .1 Staff Potter; Bernirig aouy .l Clerk/ EhcC mt Staff COMM.I Ander- son a YXd1 Staff Staf f Mayor In Pro- Postmaster r=r cess 11/95 Frankfort Drainage Drainage In Process Com. 11/95 Senior Housing - Low to Moderate Income CMIF In Process 11/95 Right of Way CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment Staff/ Cbux3.1 12/95 Consolidation/Merger Process - Cities of Albert- C=)cil Ongoing ville and Otsego 12/95 1995 Audit Staff/ In Process Carrel 61f96 ------------------EBA 61t96----- Eapital-Improvement-Plan --- Financing -Strategies --- Firm,, Eorn. O1/96 Fire Relief Retirement Fund Mayor/ FD/ Clerk O1/96 SAC Fee - Cash Flow Finmoe Ongoing Trunk Access Fees Cbrrn./ Staff/ Canril O1/96 Equipment Maintenance Log Book ENGtm. O1/96 Darkenwald Development (Commercial) Staff In Process O1/96 Savitski Development (Commercial) Staff In Process O1/96 Balfany Development (Residential) Staff In Process O1/96 Parkside 3rd Addition (Residential/Golf Course) Cou-icil In Process P&Z O1/96 D'Aigle Development (Residential) P & Z In Process O1/96 Water System Extension - North of I-94 Clxnc.1 In Process O1/96 Sewer System Extension - North of I-94 Cbuzczl In Process e*iN 02/96 Frankfort Township Annexation OxMil In Process 02/96 Mowing/Snow Plowing Contracting ENCtm. In Process 02/96 Freeway Interchange Ramps Trans. On Hold Com. 02/96 Maintenance Worker II - Employment Search cm-ldl On Hold 02/96 EDA Vacant Land Sale (Commercial) Cbuxil In Process 03/96 Contour Mapping Eng. 03/96 Summerfield Development (Residential) Staff In Process 03/96 Local Effort TIF Mayor/ In Process Achnin/ Atty. fp ALBERTVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY JANUARY 1996 MONTHLY OPERATION REPORT Submitted by: Preston n Schepen Project Manager Date: February 12, 1996 59 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC ALBERTVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Monthly Report - January 1996 Executive Summary. _ During the month of January the Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility did not meet the monthly average total phosphorus effluent standard of the NPDES requirements. This was due to decreasing effectiveness of the amount of alum that had been previously been added to the waste stream. A study of influent levels of phosphorus and the increase in feed rates necessary to remove the phosphorus has been initiated. Effluent from pond #3 will also be routinely tested for total phosphorus to prevent over or under dosing of alum. The wastewater treatment plant effluent averages for the month for Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand was 4.4 mg\l and Total Suspended Solids was 20 mg\l. Comments on Project Status Report: Financial performance reflects all activity in the budget year. Financial data reflecting Houston accounting is also included. Maintenance: Listed below are all the major maintenance corrective actions for the month of January. 1. Repaired the electric chain hoist in the main building. The chain limiting switch was not functional and a bolt had been inserted into the chain to stop the unit from locking up. No apparent damage from this past procedure is evident at this time. 2. An office area was cleared in the wastewater treatment area and filing systems were started to retain facility information. A computer has also been installed to generate preventative maintenance work orders and track operational data. 3. New phone lines were installed to separate the City's Maintenance Department phone from the Wastewater Plant. 4. The new dialer system was installed to upgrade the limited radio system to a system that utilizes phone paging. S. The transmitting antenna for the Industrial Park Lift Station was repaired after being blown down in a storm. c 6. The clarifier froze due to extreme cold weather during the month and the ice had to be broken out daily to prevent damage to the equipment. The skimmer arm was repaired and the unit returned to full service with no apparent damage to the equipment. _ Safety: Safety Training is ongoing. Regulatory Communications: NPDES Report Client / Public Relations: Regular contact has been maintained with Garrison Hale and Mayor Potter regarding plant operation and maintenance. Financials: The Houston Client Report shows a year to date variance of $383. Appendices: NPDES Report Financials 0 U) uj jj t Ij j I rat L.J > (n cn 3N a C C, 3> C) C: C) -rI Q X- :D -M _0 F'O 0 rT I I 'n 1-! n- 0 , rl Ln Lri r- r: Ln cn r- -Ti c-. Z -th -il E.J -1 -fl Cl E;�o 3 z -u z ra r- cc -u C> m ID s 'n W-C = C: "a C 0 M 1=1 fn C-% r1l tvCry 0CIS m r_- r-f m 'XI r->o 0- -< 0 :X M Z (n rtl z rn m m rn !Z M n CM-4- oz U g Cl - 7-1 x z Z: fri Z- -1 > 3 oo --4 X -4 M C� M --4 z m-u*= m Cm 0-"C 1> C n t:l --4 '�l W -1 (D Cn:r r 7:e , C" En 1. 0 z 0 loore= M -A > a 'xi �- '.TJ C't --- I -il C) --q 311 Cl f-3 M to Z C, C 1 M > C) -16 . 1--J 3'L:3 Ul C) :71 M 51 c M -- --4 W F C: r- V) U'i ED (Tl j, > Z 5 -'au m (a - in C-, f _-i rj) C), Ft7 - 7j (il ."D z 0 0 fl I �v m z Fil MO z CL m m m m 9 m m m 9 m m m m 9 m m 9 m m m .3 05 0, S. 1 10 0 .0 s m > (a U) 0 .0 G m 3-0 14). 0 .0 s m > (a 10 0, E- m > U, In 0 cm > U) U) 0-0 Cm I CA ), :0 31 m r C:; a M m , m m m C m m a m m:; C M'v m I m , m C "'a M m a n m m m C a m m m A r C M'a m C :; m C M m gm m m M M Z :4 m 9 m gm ib m z Z m z z z m Fl z m Z z —4 m z z -4 m + m Cr rD E; a; a� < A'. m > C, Al. (b 0 > z 41 Al z > A.r 'f! it m m 4 0 0 n 'n -0 0 0 F rn 1 z 0 M 1"7 C3 -7.1 M z 0 0 > !t, 71 m m m > x m 0 0 m C m 0 ,n 'n M 0 m m <: m M C) 0 z 71 :11 0 > 0 2? N > m > O LAJ V ID r7l 0 m z m 17, > z 0 0 El 0 A C7 ! 7 .4 rl -.Ta-1 1 Ci r. I' > j-, - - 0 m M r- -t-1 J, -7 m"n 0 Ez -3 n to m m I I I CO C.l tTl .,2 1..., 1 - - , . 1'j t--j -1 11 tJ Ul -,I 'I cn > cn r" m-11 C? Q I Cl 'V> r.-I Ul C-1 , r. cl Zr r-- C", r-I t-j :pr- rI 1,.�t 71J C3 S: C, CI z -u r- z ar- > > CWL * Co ro - 17 1-11 f.::" :F-: "A C- 2L C -n -< M- cnM rL 2- r. CI :rs ILI) r- > o 0 - 0- -< - I rTI Fri C) Fri —1 Fri --I - - -.4 > 3 0 Z z --, 0 o --i F"I :Z G-., r*rl Z OZMM,V c m 0 -,< m :r K." t", It .:I f-0 co u) r- 1171 cl C.l Z C. r-, r7l m -4 > c > 37- r � 1, J m 7, f-- Fri 7:.! U, 'it U) z Fo m r 1 T1 r rI C? r TI fry Ci ---I r I li r.� r --I r M Zv > z Orl F- --q m 03 Xl. r-M 0 ri L) 0 m z 3 m m m m m m m m ITT M ITT m m III M O cr 0 .0 C m > I (n > C) m > In > c > U) C: > U) C) c > U) > 0 > LO 0, > w > m 1 m m m m m :,3 -u m IT! cm: 3: -0 m I -9 m In E: I- c 9 m .0 m - in -M m 33 m C: M :0 m m -, M m m m m m m m L m m =4 El M m 9 M m m m z z z z m z z m z z m z z m z z m z -4 ate_ C)- cp CL + + < CYmm t m m k 4,. > 0 lb m zr � S0 z -,7 > ar :J.. ie c fl T) In 5 z > z h. C: 13 m -4c cn ITT 0 0 M m z 0 M > r- :4c Fri Z R m ITT it C m x ITT -it 0 0 m 0 -n 71 > < 0 Fri Tr! m 0 33 > z 0 17j m 0 m > z 0 z N > --I m > .-x . 7 C, m z :r, Z r, -71 • .3: C) Z m -4 Z! 0 > > 0 z it z m > 0 0 ,n m Ln z O T, -T (TI M m n m-n 0 9 in, z (D 2, C7 r I w 9 010 O OBI t O � V1 W a 0 s` WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT -- SUPPLEMEN MECHANICAL FACILITY LL W Ow > Q QW o C � 1 2 Z O , F 4 M a o U� wL CL a 3 W HQ z¢ W W Ja i— ZWO 4 ._ f o z E W'� �3 O ZJ _0 5 _ - - E Z E W V7 �o �O Zm _U _ 6 ~ E Z� W 1n J❑ u 0 LLW WU 7 �� z< W> in rJO0 ¢�O WWm a¢U 8 v �Y Z� W N DO LLO LLm wU 9 F - z rn W �E - zU) Zr 10 �-- z rn W JE LL(n WF- 11 O1 ~ ZQ > VO WW n.¢ 12 — � � z� W rn �" LLN Uj 13 'c z� W O� �� LL= z G 14 1- c z M W �� J N LLS W a 15 7 ¢ z0 W= �a JN— LL26) W(LE 16 7 ¢ z0 W=— Jam N� -LL LLS a' Wa" 17 z za W Z 00— J LL�� W14 18 z- W; O -j LL� W 3 2 3 (� 5- 6 3/ 7 8 3`f 9 c �; 10 i Ise 11 12 % .5 13 14 15 3S 16 17 18 19 j 20 . 21 S S 22 23 1 24 25 25 26 , 27 S j 28 29 30 ! __ 31 TOTAI dr -11luem violations, bypasses/overflows, or other unusual conditions X'did = did not (✓ one) occur during reporting perio(f. REMARKS Include information on violations, bypasses/overflows, unusual sewage or stream flow problems, operational proble h�wl PO-00030-02 MPCA 703 - 2/4191 Send with summary DMR form by 21st MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY day of month following reporting period to: 520 LAFAYETTE ROAD ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155 ATTN. W.Q., INDUSTRIAL SECTION 9 ,� _ o f F- W E. W J W J00 LL v) LL_X woo 20 Q U E Uj 'L F_ M a W O Q JLLI-''C11 LLJU� LLOQ wc>m� 21 — E F- W J W Q j JOB LLJ(n LL=W wc)¢ 22 W Q E 00 JW 2(n c» 23 ZO FLD i ¢ QJ r =Z0 UWW WU'w 0aD 24 J W< 00 N �LLa JLnO mc� 25 J W< N 00 Cp ALL- JAM W0 m 26 to O (n W O �.-, J� rn� - 27 W J Cr OQ rW 7J1- JOQ 05M 28 ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS 1. \-, v 7 '•L 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 '3 )3 �4v J75 . y7 l/• s 1 1 7 l4 � S Zo z)+ 13 gS 0 ga S 'o .ZoS . 2l1 ` so, explain in remarks section. Name(s) of laboratory(ies) performing analyses: s, complaints, etc. (Use/additional sheets if necessary.) , 01(A S '&,V "'f eCJI 46 G� 1 Q Uticq� ALBERTVILLE WWTF LOADINGS Contract Values & Triggers: Ave- 0.1580 MGD Ave- 307 # Ave- 187 # High- 0.1896 MGD High- 368 # High- 224 # Low- 0.1264 MGD Low- 246 # Low- 150 # Design: 0.3150 MGD 368 # 368 # FLOW 12 mo % of TSS 12 mo % of CBOD 12 mo % of MGD Avg. Design -- mg/I Lbs. Avg. Design ...,,,..,.» mgA .................. Los. Avg. ........ ....... ............ Design ., 1995 Jan 0.151 N/A 47.94% 384 483 N/A 131.24% 240 302 N/A 82.13% Feb 0.143 N/A 45.40°% 285 339 N/A 92.20% 184 219 N/A 59.63% Mar 0.164 N/A 52.06% 288 394 N/A 107.04% 191 261 N/A 70.80% Apr 0.177 N/A 56.19% 99 145 N/A 39.51 % 92 136 N/A 36.90% May 0.172 N/A 54.60% 274 392 N/A 106.61 % 148 212 N/A 57.69% Jun 0.163 N/A 51.75% 232 315 N/A 85.70% 133 181 N/A 49.13°% Jul 0.152 N/A 48.25% 222 281 N/A 76.47% 154 195 N/A 53.05% Aug 0.174 N/A 55.24% 288 418 N/A 113.57% 136 197 N/A 53.63% Sep 0.165 N/A 52.38% 234 322 N/A 87.50% 100 138 N/A 37.39% Oct 0.161 N/A 51.11 % 294 395 N/A 107.27% 122 164 N/A 44.51 % Nov 0.163 N/A 51.75% 78 106 N/A 28.81 % 68 92 N/A 25.12% Dec 0.156 N/A 49.52% 405 527 N/A 143.19% 234 304 N/A 32.73°% 1996 Jan 0.161 0.1626 51.61 % 250 336 331 89.93% 175 235 195 52.87% AEGIS ICR109PSG PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. DATE 2/09/96 PAGE 1 K 0 1 T R L Y CLIENT REPORT TIME 4:30PK THROUGH PERIOD 03-96. WING 1/26/96 DISTRICT KGR: ELK EELSIE KCGUIRE Project: C6241.A ALBERTVILLE REGIONAL KGR: RCB BOB BLACE Start Date: 1/01/96 End ➢ate: 12/31/96 PROJECT KGR: PVS PRESTON VAN SCHEPEN TOTAL ======= CURRENT PERIOD =____== ====== PROJECT TO DATE ======= BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE Labor and Benefits 29,759 1,349 3,266 1,916 11.349 3,266 11916 Electricity 10,950 0 913 913 0 913 913 Other Utilities 1.551 0 129 129 0 129 129 Chezicals 71244 0 604 604 0 604 604 Kaintenance and Repairs 360 0 30 30 0 30 30 Outside Services 5,424 202 452 249 202 452 249 Travel and Keals 500 0 41 41 0 41 41 All Other 6.882 307 575 267 307 575 267 Allocations and Scope Adjustients 2.790 4.000 233 (3,7671 41,000 233 (3,7671 Overhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DIRECT COST 65,460 5.859 61243 383 5,859 6,243 383 BASE FEE 20,750 1,729 11729 0 1,729 1,729 0 TOTAL PROJECT 86,210 7.588 71972 383 71588 11972 383 18415 fI;N1U5PSs PAGE 2 PRUNESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, 4,'. MONTHLY CLIENT REPORT THROUGH PERIOD 03-96, ENDING 1/26/96 Project: C624 'R ALBERTVILLE RAR Start Date: 1/01/96 Maintenance and Repairs Overhead TOTAL DIRECT COST BASE FEE TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL BUDGET 4,020 0 4, 020 0 4, 020 End Date: 12/31/96 ======= CURRENT PERIOD ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE 0 335 335 0 0 0 0 335 335 0 0 0 0 335 335 DATE 2/09196 TIME 1:30 PM DISTRICT MGR: KLM KELSIE MCGUIRE REGIONAL MGR: RCB BOB BLACK PROJECT MGR: PVS PRESTON VAN SCHEPEN ====== PROJECT TO DATE =__==__ ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE 0 335 335 0 0 0 0 335 335 0 0 0 0 335 335 n^ 6 11:28 bl JUlNI t'UWtKS hF;lat C1L •3 r JOINT POWERS BOARD January 22, 1996 St. Michael city Hall- 7:30 PM BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruner, Schendel, Potter, Duerr, Kottke, Block, J. Vetsch, G. Vetsch BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Schendel opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. with Kevin Zachman and Roxanne Packa attending. The agenda was approved by consensus of the Board. A motion to elect Potter as the 1996 Chairman was made by Bruner, seconded by G. Vetsch. All present voted aye. The meeting was turned over, to Chairman Potter. A motion to elect Bruner as Vice -Chairman was made by G. Vetsch, seconded by J. Vetsch. All present voted aye. A motion to elect J. Vetsch as treasurer was made by Potter, seconded by Block. All present voted aye. A motion to appoint donna Kipka as Secretary was made by Potter, seconded by Kottke. All present voted aye. The minutes of the December 20, 1995 meeting was approved on a motion by Bruner, seconded by Schendel. All present voted aye. A motion to approve the December financial statements and 1995 year-end report was made by G. Vetsch, seconded by Kcttke. All present voted aye. A motion to approve the January bills as presented with the addition of 535.00 to Highland Banks for safety deposit box rental to be paid by February 10, 1996 was made by Duerr, seconded by G. Vetsch. All present voted aye. Bob Polston discussed the DNR permit and stated that the Board exceeded the permitted amount of 180 million gallons in 1995 by using 206 million gallons. The permit needs to be recalculated and they require a copy of the well records of each new well and site map of the wells. Before a permit will be approved the Emergency and Conservation Plan needs to be submitted. Bob recommends that the Board request the permit amount be increased to 400 million gallons. Dave Brown stated that DNR will require the Board to show that they have water conservation steps in place in their Emergency and Conservation Plan before getting an increase in the water appropriation permit. O� C� C E i_ :a •r R C O cd C O t 0 Q. c.� O O �(4 7 O U U O ca CJ: _ (d E R L d L' E O O Q cn E �n �... .. G C c7 � > • 01/29/1996 11:28 612-497-49Oe JOINT POWERS PAGE '03 JPB January 22, 1996 Minutes PAGE 2 Dave recommended that the Board implement one or more of the following conservation steps: ongoing sprinkling ban, send out water conservation brochures and reevaluate the rate structure. Dave stated that the DNR would like to see a sprinkling ban from 8 am to 6 pm during the summer months since most of the water used for sprinkling during the day evaporates away. The Board discussed the sprinkling ban, rate structure and brochures. The Board agreed by consensus to get a sample ordinance placing a sprinkling ban on during the spring/summer months during the hours of 10 am to 6 pm with the exception of new sod or grass and directed Donna to get the ordinance to the four communities for their next meeting. A motion to authorize Maier Stewart to get a site map of the wells in quarter, quarter, quarter section for the water appropriation permit was made by Bruner, seconded by Block. All present voted aye. Dave Brown stated that E.H. Renner would start the test hole for well #3 on Wednesday and begin Thursday. Dave Brown stated that he can finalize the Emergency and Conservation Plan and send it to the DNR with a letter stating that the Board is working on the sprinkling ban ordinance and will be sending out brochures in 1997. The Board discussed page 20 of the Emergency & Conservation Plan on who will be contacted and the corrections on the list. The Board agreed by consensus that the public works person from each community be added to the list of contacts. The Board directed Donna to get a list of the mayor and/or chairman, council and board members with clerks, public works people and fire chiefs from each of the communities. A motion to approve the Emergency & Conservation Plan with the corrections and additions on contact list was made by Block, seconded by Bruner. All present voted aye. Donna discussed the Assessment information she gathered, the policies for how assessments are determined, the attorney's letter and the conclusion of the past Board going with a contract charge due to the time constraints of the 1977 watermain improvement. A motion to authorize Donna to contact the attorney to get together a list of the procedures that must be followed for the contract charges as recommended by Donna was made by Bruner, seconded by Schendel. All present voted aye. PGGc 04 11: 23 612-497-4908 JOIhlT POWEPS 01 / 23/ 1996 I Jpn January 22, 1996 Minutes PAGE 3 The Board and Kevin Zachman discussed the watermain 1996 covering the ownership/responsibility proposal dated January1996 watermains in Board paying each community depreciation on to their respective communitieTheoBoardle the discussed having communities one replace and install watermain. costs for repairing responsible far bath repair and replacement, Board receiving revenue. streets after replacement and the Kevin Zachman stated that the wy and one entity can't be acts as depreciated unless owned by that entity awn the watermains by getting the revenue. Kevin though they planned for by recommended that the Board decide so it can be itieSIf the Board is responsible, either the Board or the commu do a 5 year plan and let the communities know. The Board discussed planning for another tower andbee well on the south side of the system and serving Water to The Board directed Donna to do agbreakdown of the costs for distributing water for the ne t The Board tabled G & K Milling KaneGust nuntdiltablefurtherscnotice on the Brittany Kay Estates with since no representative was present for either. Roxanne Packa was present to discuss her letter Packer January 12, 1996 regarding policies for watermain breaks. knows she would like to see a written set procedure so the city rompt what will take place, the watermain break be handled in With a p and timely manner and the residents .o.imatebtimetwatedr would t ahe time the water was turned off and pp back on. Bob Polston discussed his letter dated January mu y i and the community f the stated that his staff contacts the onaor of a weekend or holiday. Some watermain break happens at night, times acts the city notifies the Board atdehepast heehashehadtythentcity all others. Bob stated that in contact roto rooter to steam timout the storm Sewer' to the ondi packa questioned the thatetheebreak ment ton Oak or spAvenue SW was watermain breaks Stating reported at 7 pm, but not responded to until 10 pm. Polston stated that he doesn't contact the fire department unless his staff would not be on site of trie watermain brealc'sheet The Board directed Bob Polston to write up aor watermain procedure and flow chart regarding the chain of notification f deletions Or breaks and bring back to the Board gformeedting. corrections to be made at February 01/29/1996 11:2 612-497-4908 JOINT POWERS JPB January 22, 1996 Minutes PAGE 4 Donna stated that NSP and United Telephone didn't respond to an emergency locate request regarding the Ridge Circle SE watermain break causing delay in repairing the break approximately 2 hours. The Board directed Donna to send a letter to both regarding this matter. The Board discussed the January 1996 letter from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and stated that each Board member would see the video at their community. A motion to appoint the Crow River News as the official newspaper was made by G. Vetsch, seconded by Bruner. All present voted aye, A motion to appoint the same depositories as last year with the exception of the State Bank of Rogers was made by Block, seconded by Kottke. All present voted aye, The depositories include: Highland Banks Shearson Lehman Brothers Norwest Banks Marquette Banks Bank of Elk River Rockford State Bank - Hanover Piper Jaffray Hopwood Inc Dain Bosworth IDS Financial Services Merrill Lynch Piper Capital Management Dean Witter Block questioned water being put in for Beebee Lake when the sewer in put in and what is needed and the costs involved. A motion to authcri2e Maier Stewart to prepare a report for servicing Beebee Lake with water with the materials and costs was made by Schendel, seconded by G. Vetsch. All present voted aye. A motion to adjourn was made by G. Vetsch, seconded by Block. All present voted aye. The Board adjourned at 9:41 pm. Respectively Submitted, Donna Kipka, Secretary MO&W50TA MUNICIPAL UTYU77ES ASSOClAnION 12805 Highway 55 •Suite 212 •Plymouth, MN 55441-3859 612.551.1230 800.422.0119 (MN) •Fax 612.551.0459 February 16, 1996 Ms. Linda Houghton, Clerk City of Albertville 5975 Main Avenue NE P. O. Box 9 Albertville, MN 55301 Dear Ms. Houghton: It is with great pleasure that we welcome Albertville as a member of the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association (MINIUA). We hope that your experience as a member will be beneficial and productive and we assure you that we will do everything possible to make it so. MMUA provides a variety of services, and more are on the way. The enclosed sheet provides a summary of the services currently available. We have a full range of workshops, training programs and information services to keep you up to date and in the know. If there are other services you need, give us a call. We'll try our best to provide them for you, or put you in touch with someone who can. MMUA serves as your voice — in the legislature, before state agencies, and throughout the industry. We want to represent your interests as best we can, and in order to do that we need to know what your concerns are. Let us know what issues worry you. Let us know what you need. Though your voice may be small, speaking together we can make ourselves heard. Once again, welcome to NQvfUA- We look forward to working with you and getting to know you and the members of the utility staff and the city council. Please don't hesitate to give us a call at 1-800-422-0119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jack Kegel Executive Director Enclosures IVIffJFI*1V41ff6 ANESOTA MUNICIPAL UT/UTIES A550CI4T70N 12805 Highway 55 • Suite 212 • Plymouth, MN 5544I-3859 • 612.551.1230 800.422.0119 �MN� February 16, 1996 Mr. Garrison L. Hale City of Albertville 5975 Main Avenue NE P. 0. Box 9 Albertville, MN 55301 Dear Garrison: Thank you for joining the MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium. Enclosed is a copy of the MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium policies and procedures. You have already sent us a Consortium Member Agreement and your list of Employees Subject to Random Drug and Alcohol Testing. You can disregard the copies of these documents which are also contained in the first few pages of the manual. If you have new employees or employees to drop from your original list, please let us know. A form is provided. The last form in the Consortium Documents section is for your records, to document Supervisory Training. The next step is to adopt your Substance Abuse Prevention Program. This program is contained in Section 2 of the manual. Adopting Section 2 meets many informational requirements of the rule. This information must be given to the drivers. You may also need to review your employment policies. Section 3 is a general discussion of the MMUA Consortium and policy considerations. Policies themselves are covered in the Substance Abuse Policy Guide (tab 4) of this manual. After completing these steps, and completion of required training, you are set to comply with federal alcohol and drug testing rules for CDL holders. We recommend a copy of the material contained in tab 5 also be given to all employees upon adoption of the program, and when they are selected for testing. Sections 6, 7 and 8 are a list of collection sites, the federal rule, and state law copy, respectively. These sections are for your information. You will also be receiving shortly some Drug and Alcohol Testing Custody and Control forms from MedExpress, our testing lab. Drivers should take one of these forms with them (along with their drivers license) to the collection site when the driver's number comes up through the random testing process. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Once again, thank you for joining the Consortium. Sincerely, Steve Downer Deputy Executive Director t. A .0 y. �I , N .� r �- tr = fie• 'e rL1 r.�.'�•,t,�Yt..31's{roc �,`�. ,i?� Y ' * r � �• I}� �F f A-�+ Cr� 4rMq. Lt!••ir .. k• :Ilk • C• O O, O• C ..:� N ' � - '"G Q3 6J - y ram.• _ � t7 ca CT ^C K Ir•1 C �, w .Q. ca ee Q%' .v�y. V 4•Y. .� Q �y G.i. •L� I ca- 40 .++ N .�qu....',wi.1 vy.GL-�.,�. �. s`� =.�.,�•. C _.: r. - U .� :� 'N cc .;3. C v eA O eEEO. N - Lr�'ir Cd \•_� �' •U ,•'� � .C... '3 � •Qi' .-C._ 6n. rQ+.. L � .L Q• C- ._• �. Q � E ._ CD CO3 Go .. . r. C O G id �.. 3 0 O C p 1• Vl • U y y . !30 1..:00 ..>.. Mz pp. O :•- 0 Ci' N % Q `. L _N L �'- L � a. G > c_.0 N G. O O1 N c �.. t a�. �.:•. O N. O �.. ..r N CD '-' .,c. a� Q, O CV.' ow 4N c A o �•• a� > .r o ,o o aci.:3 ,— . y Q:..y.N_. N .. L C.4 :�+.1�' ca :. [yr. -_ • �' wU� O L. C _ . W �.. �' .fir- •0 �: �• cd • _ In •O'. �F . • •• i 4 C-' . - ..Q•r C9 ' . � G p ID Lp Ca cad• O _ • y �,. O G y LL > ba Ca 04 04 p C N �c.� • � .r�' a> > a� �► 'o eC. aci cm +• a: t •ea a N c •Ls G r. L G W r O rr p C C vY C O > .^>. N bCD m "' y s •�' a •O w CA CIS d CIS G Cl)y 04 p Y 0 C s 'ti 3 O N p C Q p' 'Q U N r... N O N '�•••_ Q h V1 G. 6i •Ci U `�' +`ts 'C c0 C E L Ci C d .. RS �° N .3 c :: 'O " c o4 c' `��•. `� y C..� c p C R Z► fl, _ y o y p' v c o aci `' •� CD Q y •� y CD C Q Q. J C ��LL• 11J1�1�.1L-11 �•�- A ER CAN M I NATIONAL Bond Investment Dept. 101 EAST Phone: (612) 29&6148 ST PAUL , Members FDIC HIGHLAND BANK ** ATTN: WAYNE ERDMAN 8140 26TH AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 160 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 BANK ASSOCIATION FIFTH STREET MN 55101 New Pledged Security Notification 5h Receipt Number: 157000402 Account: 162356 Effective: 01/10/1996 The following securities have been pledged to: CITY OF ALBERTVILLE MN SUB PLEDGE VARIOUS AMOUNT PLEDGED 1,903,064.70 FHLMC BALLOON M19049 05.500 FGPC M19049 G CUSIP: 31289KBSO Maturity Dt: 10/01/1997 Rate: 5.5000000 Issue Dt: 10/01/1992 Face Amt: 3,000,000.00000 Par Amt: 1,903,064.70000 Such substituted securities are held subject to all the terms and conditions of the original Custodian Receipt for Pledged Securities bearing the number set forth above. This receipt is not assignable or negotiable. Signed in triplicate 4'�' / 19 ��A�, R1CA BANK - Bond Investment Dept. Phone: (612) 298-6148 `[embers FDIC HIGHLAND BANK ** ATTN: WAYNE ERDMAN 8140 26TH AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 160 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 AMERICAN BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ST PAUL, MN 55101 Pledged Security Release Notification' Effective: 01/29/1996 Receipt Number: 157000452 11status2has been released from: 356 The following security' Pledge CITY OF ALBERTVILLE MN SUB PLEDGE VARIOUS r 06� 70 AMOUNT PLEDGED 1,90=, FHLMC BALLOON M19049 05.500 FGPC M19049 G CUSIP: 31289KBS0 Maturity Dt: 10/01/1997 Rate: 5.5000000 Issue Dt: 10/01/1992 Face Amt: 3,000,000.00000 Par Amt: 1,903,064.70000 \tvrx.�\st't:x.�ttt.r: x� �ectrrt.� rto\, �sstcvsu•;xr (te (rrttt:xtctst:. r t h kr .! . ( I�i (: r i K ;ri? !zn'n : ;> , (t l e - ur. ;z (u ;:'.rr•.I r.erl\(; � ILI. IIF. ;t'It!flC'r To „t !z NOW11,v- l.!:PING '";Vt+\!t,\1 .;!-:1`.\! `. '.\i� f?!k. \I )'1' F111C Lt�ure(i, arc nut depu.it. ul, ahli�:uu(m of or �uarantcc(1 he the li:tnk. and ntnc itt�ultc AMERICAN = A. i sArrlc- Bond Investment Dept. Phone: (612) 298-6148 Members FDIC HIGHLAND BANK ** ATTN: WAYNE ERDMAN 8140 26TH AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 160 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 AMERICAN BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ST PAUL, MN 55101 New Pledged Security Notification Receipt Number: 182006313 Account: 162356 Effective: 01/29/1996 The following securities have been pledged to: CITY OF ALBERTVILLE MN SUB PLEDGE VARIOUS FNMA REMIC 1990-47 K FNR FNRM CT47K RT1990-47 CUSIP: 3136037F3 Maturity Dt: 08/25/2019 Rate: 8.5000000 Issue Dt: 05/01/1990 Face Amt: 2,000,000.00000 Par Amt: 2,000,000.00000 Such substituted securities are held subject to all the terms and conditions of the original Custodian Receipt for Pledged Securities bearing the number set forth above. This receipt is not assignable or negotiable. Signed in triplicate 19 C 0 By CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MIMFS0?A -RESOLUTION #1996-15 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF KEYS FOR CITY OF ALBERTVILLE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Albertville is desirous of establishing an authorized list of key holders; and WHEREAS, the City Council is establishing the list of key holders through this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, hereby establishes following approved list of key holders. the FurtherthCit authorizes the City Administrator to admi, e y Council nister this resolution in compliance with Resolution #1995-20 "A Resolution Establishing A Policy on Keys and Security" and rescind any and all prior Council actions by replacement with this resolution. NEW CITY HALL City Council Public Works Department Planning & Zoning Commission Chair Economic Development Authority Chair City Hall Office Staff City Building Offidial WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Public Works Committee Public Works Department Professional Services Group (Independent Contractor) OLD CITY HALL/FIRE HALL -PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Public .Works Committee Public Works Department Fire Department Community Organizations (Lions, Lionesses, Jaycees, Boy Scouts) Sign -Out Key (Clerk's Office) CITY PARK SHELTER Public Works Committee Public Works Department Community Organizations (Lions, Lionesses, Jaycees, Boy Scouts) Sign Out Key (Clerk's Office) - Temporary Sign Out MASTER KEY (All Buildings) City Administrator City Clerk -Treasurer KEY BOX City Administrator City Cl.erk-Treasurer ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Potter, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Houghton, Clerk CITY OF ALBIItTS7ILLE COUNTY OF fiRIGHT STATE OF MINNFSCYlA RESOLUTION NO. 1996-8 WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of appointing Maintenance Workers I and Clerk/Typist, Full Time and Part -Time Temporary, effective to January 1, 1996, and thereafter, and; WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in determining that the positions is in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and City of Albertville Personnel Policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, hereby appoints the following individuals to the position of Maintenance Worker I; and NAME PAY RANGE STEP Edward Ostendorf 2 C Merlyn Brandt C Terry Williams 2 C Tim Barthel '_ C Sandy Kjellberg 2 C Erwin Roden ? C Allen Ruther 2 C Ken Weber 2 C Michael Potter 2 C Albert Barthel 2 C Rav Vetsch 2 C Steve Breingan 2 C the following individual to the position of Clerk/Typist. NAME PAY RANGE STEP Katie McCoy 2 A BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Albertville further authorizes the individuals appointed to the position of Maintenance Worker I who serve in the capacity of snow plowing will be compensated at Pay Range 2 Step G. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Potter, Mavor Attest: Linda Houghton, City Clerk 50 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #1996-17 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMMERCIAL DRIVERS' LICENSE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR DRUGS AND ALCOHOL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Albertville is desirous of establishing a substance abuse prevention program for drug and alcohol; and WHEREAS, the ~.it-7 Council is determining the parameters of a program b.r joining the Minnesota Municiaal Jtil_ties Asscciat a:.' Drucr and Alcohol Testina Consorty,.jm. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, flat tLe Cite Council o- Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, adepts a "Commerciai Drivers' License Substance Abuse Prevention Program for Drugs and Alcohol," as provided by the MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium. ADOPTED Bi THE CiT`..' �CQUNCIL 77 TI?E CI^"' "_'H;S 1'_^;7 DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Potter, Mavor ATTEST: Linda Houghton, Clerk MMU A DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING CONSORTIUM COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE UBSTANCE ABUSPRE�NTION PROG�:AM SE FOR DRUGS AlD ALCOHOL City of Albertville Adopted by: Nazne of EmploYn or Conastor Date Adopted: March 4, 1996 Effective: J anuar 1 1996 December 1995 SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS 1 Purpose and Construction ................................... 1 2 Applicability ........................................... 1-2 3 Consortium .............................................. 2 4 Effect of Use, Refusal or Failure ............................. 3 5 Safety -Sensitive Function ................................. 3-4 6 Prohibited Conduct ...................................... 4-5 7 Types of Testing ....................................... 5-10 8 Drug Testing Procedures ............................... 11-18 9 Alcohol Testing Procedures ............................. 19-26 10 Information and Training .................................. 27 11 Driver Referral, Evaluation and Treatment ................. 28-29 12 Recordkeeping....................................... 30-34 13 Access to Facilities and Records ......................... 34-35 APPENDICES A Employer's Substance Abuse Policy B Employee Positions Subject to Drug Testing C Personnel Subject to Training December 1995 SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION This policy describes the employer's Substance Abuse Prevention Program for certain personnel required to hold Commercial Drivers Licenses. The purpose of the program is to establish procedures for the administration of the Department of Transportation (DOT) substance abuse prevention program pursuant to the Commercial Driver's License Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 (49 CFR), Part 382. Part 382 requires employers to implement substance abuse prevention programs if they employ personnel who operate commercial motor vehicles and who are required to have commercial drivers' licenses. This program is being implemented through a consortium with other municipal utilities and local governments through the MWA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium (The Consortium). SECTION 2. APPLICABILITY The employer has employees who drive commercial motor vehicles and who are required to have commercial drivers' licenses. The employer is therefore subject to the regulatory requirements of 49 CFR Part 382 and has joined with other municipal utilities, local governments and their contractors to comply with these regulations through The Consortium. Drivers who use a commercial motor vehicle and who are required to have a Commercial Driver's License are subject to this policy. A list of employee positions subject to drug and alcohol testing is attached as Appendix B to this policy. Employees and prospective employees shall be tested in accordance with requirements of the Commercial Driver's License Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 (49 CFR), Part 382 and Part 40. For the purposes of this policy, commercial motor vehicles include: a. A motor vehicle with a gross combination weight of 26,001 or more pounds, including a towed unit with a gross weight of 10,000 pounds; or b. A motor vehicle designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; or A motor vehicle required to be placarded under regulation of hazardous materials (49 CFR Part 172, subpart F). Employers with 50 or more employees subject to the regulation must implement a substance abuse prevention program for drugs and alcohol beginning January 1, 1995. Employers with fewer than 50 employees subject to the regulation must implement a substance abuse prevention program for drugs and alcohol beginning January 1, 1996. December 1995 The following categories of employees are exempt from the CDL drug and alcohol testing program. These employees are not included in calculating the 50 employee threshold for determining the effective date of testing. a. Mass transit employees subject to Federal Transit Authority drug and alcohol testing under 40 CFR Parts 653 and 654. (However, elderly and disabled transit programs are subject to the CDL program). b. Drivers waived from having a CDL (e.g., fire fighters). In the event of a conflict between this program and the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 382, the provisions of the federal regulations will prevail. SECTION 3. CONSORTIUM The MMUA Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium (The Consortium) is a consortium of members of the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association. The Consortium has developed this Substance Abuse Prevention Program to assist member employers in meeting federal Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing requirements. As consortium participants, municipal utilities and local governments share costs for program administration and recordkeeping and pool their employees for the purpose of random testing. Also eligible for membership in the consortium are contractors who perform work for MMUA members, and labor unions or other labor organizations whose members perform work for MMUA members as employees of contractors or the members themselves. Contractors who provide drivers or other covered functions for the employer more than once a year must confirm at least every 6 months that the driver participates in a conforming drug and alcohol testing program. MMUA may utilize third party service providers in administering consortium functions described in this program. References to administrative functions performed by "MMUA" or "consortium" should be construed to include performance by one or more of these third party agents. December 1995 2 SECTION 4. EFFECT OF USE, REFUSAL OR FAILURE Any job applicant applying for a position with the employer who refuses or fails a pre- employment drug test will not be hired. (Pre -employment alcohol testing is no longer required.) No employee covered by this policy who has engaged in prohibited drug use will perform safety -sensitive functions. The employer will immediately remove from performing safety - sensitive functions covered by the DOT safety standards in 49 CFR Part 382 any employee covered by this policy who refuses or fails an alcohol or drug test. Any employee covered by this policy who refuses or fails an alcohol or drug test may receive disciplinary action, up to and including termination, in accordance with the substance abuse policy of the employer (see Appendix A). Furthermore, an employer or driver who violates these requirements may be subject to the penalties found at 49 U.S.C. 521(b), including: a. Employer 1. Civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000; and 2. Criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations with a maximum fine of $25,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both. b. Drivers with Commercial Drivers' Licenses 1. Civil penalties for knowing and willful violations ranging from $500 to $2,500; and 2. Criminal penalties with a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 90 days, or both. SECTION 5. SAFETY -SENSITIVE FUNCTIONS The performance of safety -sensitive functions generally includes any time a driver is required to be ready to work in or on a commercial motor vehicle as defined in SECTION 2 APPLICABILITY (page 1) of this policy. Safety -sensitive functions include: a. All time the driver is waiting to be dispatched, unless the employer has relieved the driver from duty; b. All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time; C. All driving time; d. All time in or on any commercial motor vehicle; December 1995 3 e. All time supervising, assisting, or attending the loading or unloading of a vehicle, or remaining in readiness to operate the vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded; f. All time repairing; obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled vehicle. SECTION 6. PROHIBITED CONDUCT 6.1 Prohibited Employee Conduct. Employees will not engage in the following conduct: a. Alcohol Concentration. Report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety -sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. (The alcohol concentration level may be lowered according to employer policy.) b. Alcohol Possession. Be on duty or operate a commercial motor vehicle while possessing alcohol. C. On -duty Use. Use alcohol while performing safety -sensitive functions. d. Pre -duty Use. Perform safety -sensitive functions within 4 hours after using alcohol. e. Post -accident Use. Use alcohol for 8 hours following an accident or until undergoing a post -accident test. f. Refusal to Test. Refuse to submit to an alcohol or drug test, except a pre -employment alcohol test. g. Use drugs. Report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety - sensitive functions when the driver uses drugs. h. Test Positive for Drugs. Report for duty, remain on duty, or perform a safety -sensitive function if tested positive for drugs. Employees who engage in any of the preceding will be removed from safety -sensitive functions and referred to a substance abuse professional. December 1995 4 6.2 Prohibited Employer Conduct. The employer, if having actual knowledge that a driver is engaging in any of the conduct listed above, will not allow the driver to drive or perform any other safety -sensitive function. 63 Other Alcohol Conduct. Other regulated conduct related to an employee's use of alcohol includes the following: a. A driver whose test results indicate an alcohol concentration of .02 or greater, but less than .04, will not be allowed to perform safety -sensitive functions until the start of the driver's next regularly scheduled duty period, but not less than 24 hours following the alcohol test. b. The employer will not take action against a driver based solely on alcohol test results of less than .04. The employer may take any lawful action against the driver so long as it has authority to do so independent of these regulations. (The alcohol concentration level may be lowered according to employer policy. Employers are allowed to set stricter standards; they may not set more lenient standards.) SECTION 7. TYPES OF TESTING Covered employees are subject to six types of drug and alcohol testing under the substance abuse prevention program. Before performing a drug or alcohol test, the employer will notify the driver that testing is required. 7.1 Pre -employment Testing. Prior to the first time a driver performs safety -sensitive functions, a pre -employment drug test will be conducted. Apre-employment alcohol test is not required under federal DOT regulations. a. A pre -employment drug test will be conducted when an individual is hired for a position covered in this policy. The offer for employment may be conditioned on the results of the drug test. b. A pre -employment drug test will be conducted when a current employee becomes subject to this program as a result of a change in job description or work assignment. Such test shall be administered prior to the first time the employee performs a safety - sensitive function. C. The employer will not allow a driver subject to a pre -employment test to perform safety -sensitive functions without a verified negative test result. d. The employer will notify a driver of the results of a pre -employment drug test if the driver requests the results within 60 days of being notified of the employer's decision regarding the driver's employment application. December 1995 5 Exceptions to Pre -Employment Drug Testing: Pre -employment drug testing is not required if the driver was in an appropriate drug testing program within the previous 30 days and either was tested within the past 6 months or was subject to random testing for the past 12 months. 2. The employer must determine that the driver's previous known employers do not have a record of a violation during the past 6 months. 3. If an employer chooses to rely on the exception, the employer must obtain the following information from the previous employers: (a) Name and address of the program; (b) Verification that the driver participated in the program; (c) Verification that the program procedures comply with 49 CFR Part 40; (d) Verification the driver qualifies for the exception; (e) Verification the driver has not refused to be tested for drugs; (f) Date the driver was last tested; and (g) Results of any tests taken within the previous 6 months. 7.2 Post -accident Testing. When an accident involving a commercial motor vehicle occurs, the employer will require a drug and alcohol test on each surviving driver who was performing safety sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle if the accident involved the loss of human life; or who received a ticket for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident. The driver(s) will be tested as follows: a. A driver who is subject to post -accident drug and alcohol testing will remain readily available for such testing or may be deemed to have refused to submit to testing. However, the driver is allowed to get necessary emergency medical attention for injured people, or, if necessary, to leave the scene of an accident for the period necessary to obtain assistance in responding to the accident. b. The employer will provide drivers with necessary information, procedures and instructions so that drivers will be able to comply. C. The employer may use drug and alcohol (breath, blood or urine) test results taken by federal, state or local officials if such test results conform to applicable requirements and the employer obtains the results. d. Drug Specific Requirements The driver will be tested as soon as practicable, but no later than 32 hours after the accident. Because certain drugs or drug metabolites do not remain in December 1995 6 the body for extended periods of time, testing should be as soon as possible. If the drug test is not administered within 32 hours after the accident, the employer will cease attempts to administer the drug test and will prepare and maintain records stating why the employer did not administer the tests promptly. 2. All reasonable steps will be taken to obtain a urine sample from an employee after an accident. In the case of a conscious but hospitalized employee, the employer will request a hospital or medical facility to obtain a sample and if necessary, reference will be made to the DOT drug testing requirements. If an employee is unconscious or otherwise unable to evidence consent to the procedure, the medical facility shall collect the sample. 3. If an employee who is subject to post -accident testing is conscious, able to urinate normally (in the opinion of a medical professional) and refuses to be tested, that employee will be removed from duty as an employee covered by this policy. e. Alcohol Specific Requirements If the alcohol test is not administered in 2 hours the employer will prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons. If the alcohol test is not administered within 8 hours the employer will stop attempts to administer the test and will prepare and maintain a record stating the reason. 7.3 Random Testing. All employees working as drivers are subject to unannounced drug and alcohol testing based on random selection. Random testing will be conducted as follows: a. The employer, through the consortium, will ensure that random drug and alcohol tests are unannounced and spread reasonably throughout the calendar year. b. The consortium will calculate the number of drivers subject to random drug and alcohol tests using a scientifically valid method of random selection. To assure that the selection process is random, all drivers covered by this policy may be placed in a common pool. The random selection procedure will employ a computer -based random number generator that is matched with the data base record number or social security number of each driver in the pool. C. All drivers will be subject to random testing on each random testing date and will have an equal chance of being tested each time selections are made. As a result of the random selection process, a driver may be tested more than once or not at all during the calendar year. December 1995 7 d. The consortium will select a sufficient number of alternate drivers for testing in each test period to ensure that testing is conducted at the required rate. Alternate drivers will be tested in order of selection only if persons selected are unavailable for testing due to vacations, medical leave or travel requirements. e. Testing Rate Drug Specific Requirement. For drug testing, the number of drivers to be tested will be equivalent to at least fifty percent (50%) of this pool every twelve (12) months. 2. Alcohol Specific Requirement. For alcohol testing, the number of drivers to be tested will be equivalent to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the common pool of drivers every twelve (12) months. The percentage of drivers to be tested for alcohol misuse can be adjusted by the FHWA Administrator to an amount between 10% and 50% of all drivers based on violation rates for the industry. f. A driver selected for random drug or alcohol testing will proceed to the test site immediately. However, if the driver is performing a safety -sensitive function, the driver will stop performing the safety -sensitive function and will proceed to the test site as soon as possible. g. Random testing will be spread reasonably throughout the year. h. If a driver is subject to drug or alcohol testing under the testing rules of more than one DOT agency for the employer, the driver will be subject to drug or alcohol testing at the minimum annual percentage rate established for the calendar year by the DOT agency regulating more than fifty percent (50%) of the driver's function. I. If the employer is required to conduct random drug or alcohol testing under the testing rules of more than one DOT agency the employer may: 1. Establish separate pools for random selection, with each pool having the DOT -covered employees who are subject to testing at the same required minimum annual percentage rate; or 2. Administer drug or alcohol tests to the highest minimum annual percentage rate to which the employer is subject. j. Alcohol Specific Requirement The employer will administer a random alcohol test to a driver only just before, while, or just after the driver has ceased performing a safety -sensitive function. December 1995 8 7.4 Reasonable Suspicion Testing. When the employer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a driver covered by this policy is using a prohibited drug, or is using alcohol in a prohibited manner, the employer will require the driver to take a drug or alcohol test (whichever is appropriate) as follows: a. A decision to test must be based on specific contemporaneous, describable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech or body odors of the driver. b. The required observations for reasonable suspicion drug or alcohol testing must be made by a trained supervisor or a trained company official. The employer may only direct a driver to take a reasonable suspicion drug or alcohol test during, just before, or just after the period of the work day that the driver is performing safety -sensitive functions. d. Drug Specific Requirements Observations may include indications of the chronic and withdrawal effects of controlled substances. For drugs, examples of this are evidence of repeated errors on-the-job, regulatory or employer rule violations, or unsatisfactory time and attendance patterns, coupled with a specific contemporaneous event that indicates probable drug use. 2. The employer will make a written record of the observations leading to a reasonable suspicion drug test within 24 hours of the observations or before the results of the drug test are released, whichever is earlier. The supervisor or company official who made the observations must sign this record. e. Alcohol Specific Requirements For alcohol, the observations must be made just before, while, or just after the driver has ceased performing safety -sensitive functions. 2. The person who makes the determination that reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an alcohol test may not conduct the alcohol test. 3. If the test is not administered within 2 hours following the supervisor's observation and determination that a reasonable suspicion of alcohol violations exists, the employer will prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons. If the alcohol test is not administered within 8 hours the employer will stop attempts to administer the test and will prepare and maintain a record stating the reason. December 1995 9 4. Once behavioral, speech, and performance indicators show a driver is under the influence of or impaired by alcohol, the driver will not report for, or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety -sensitive functions. 5. The employer will not permit a driver to perform or continue to perform safety -sensitive functions if the employer has a reasonable suspicion the driver is under the influence of alcohol until: (a) An alcohol test shows the driver's alcohol concentration is less than .02; or (b) 24 hours have elapsed following the determination of reasonable suspicion. 6. Other than requiring a driver to take an alcohol test, the Commercial Driver's License regulation (49 CFR Part 382) does not authorize the employer to take any action against the driver based solely on the driver's behavior and appearance with respect to alcohol use until the driver takes, or refuses to take, an alcohol test. However, the employer may take any lawful action against the driver which the employer desires if the employer has independent authority to do so. 7.5 Return to Duty Testing. Any driver who has engaged in prohibited drug or alcohol use (positive drug test; alcohol test at .04 or above) must undergo a drug or alcohol test before returning to duty requiring the performance of safety -sensitive functions. The drug test must indicate a verified negative result for drug use. The alcohol test must indicate an alcohol concentration of less than .02. 7.6 Follow-up Testing. A driver returned to duty in accordance with subsection 7.5 is subject to follow-up testing: a. Following a determination by a substance abuse professional that a driver needs help in resolving drug or alcohol abuse problems, the employer will administer unannounced follow-up drug or alcohol testing as directed by a substance abuse professional. At least 6 tests are required in the first 12 months following the driver's return to duty. The substance abuse professional may require both alcohol and drug tests. b. Alcohol Specific Requirement The employer will conduct follow-up alcohol testing only just before, while, or just after the driver performs safety -sensitive functions. December 1995 10 SECTION 8. DRUG TESTING PROCEDURES 8.1 General Guidelines.- The following testing procedures will be followed in conducting tests under this program: a. Drug testing will be performed utilizing urine samples. A split sample method of collection will be used. b. Tests for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines and phencyclidine will be performed. Upon notification that a drug test is required, a driver will report immediately to a drug collection site and provide a specimen of his/her urine. Since delay in reporting to a site after notification can adversely affect the outcome of a test result, the time allowed for drivers to report for drug testing after receiving notice will be travel time plus thirty (30) minutes. 8.2 Collection Sites (For Urine Specimens) In order to provide maximum convenience to employees of consortium members, the program will utilize the services of numerous collection sites throughout the state. A listing Of collection sites used under this program is included in Tab 6. Each collection agency will comply with all methods and procedures of 49 CFR Part 40, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Program, and will provide necessary reports to Consortium members it serves, showing compliance. a. Split Specimen Samples A split sample of at least 45 ml of urine will be collected--30 ml for the primary sample and 15 ml for the split sample. If a 60 ml collection container or single specimen bottle is used, the collection site personnel will divide the specimen into two specimen bottles in the presence of the donor. Both bottles will be shipped in a single shipping container, together with copies 1, 2, and the split specimen copy of the chain of custody form, to the laboratory. If the test result of the primary specimen is positive, the MRO will, if requested by the employee within 72 hours after being notified of the test result, direct a different DHHS-certified laboratory to test the split specimen. The result of the second test will be provided to the MRO. If the result of second test fails to confirm the drugs found in the primary sample, the test will be canceled. December 1995 b. Privacy Unless there is a reason to believe that a particular individual may alter or substitute the specimen, procedures for collecting urine specimens will allow individual privacy. - The following circumstances are the gnlX grounds for a reason to believe the individual may tamper with a specimen and which justify the use of monitoring procedures or direct observation of the donation of the urine specimen: 1. The specimen falls outside the normal temperature range and the employee either declines to allow a measurement of oral body temperature or oral body temperature varies by more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit from the specimen temperature. 2. The last urine specimen provided by the employee was determined by the lab to have a specific gravity of less than 1.00 and a creatinine concentration below .2g/L. 3. The collection site person observes conduct clearly and unequivocally indicating an attempt to substitute or adulterate the sample. 4. In the case of follow up testing, the employee has previously been determined to have used a controlled substance without medical authorization. 5. A higher -level supervisor of the collection site person, or a designated employer representative will review and agree in advance of any decision to obtain a specimen under the direct observation of a same gender collection site person. C. The employee may not be required to waive liability with respect to negligence on the part of any person participating in the collection, handling or analysis of the specimen or to indemnify any person for the negligence of others. d. If the employee refuses to cooperate with the collection process, the collection site person will inform the employer representative and will document the non- cooperation on the drug testing custody and control form. e. Samples that yield positive results on confirmation must be retained by the laboratory in properly secured, long-term, frozen storage for at least one year. Within this one- year period, the employee or his/her representative, the consortium member, or the authorized federal or state agencies may request that the laboratory retain the sample for an additional period. If, within the one-year period, the laboratory has not December 1995 12 received a proper written request to retain the sample for a further reasonable period specified in the request, the sample may be discarded. g. Since some analytes may deteriorate during storage, detected levels of the drug below the detection limits -established in the DOT Procedures, but equal to or greater than the established sensitivity of the assay, must, as technically appropriate, be reported and considered corroborative of the original positive results. 8.2 Medical Review Officer (MRO). The MRO for this policy is: Deitmar Hanns-Jurgen Bennet M.D. Patty Pepper, M.D. c/o Chem Review 1424 W. Century Avenue, Suite 106 Bismarck, ND 58501 (800) 759-8510 An essential part of the drug testing program is the final review of confirmed positive results 1.7 from the laboratory. A positive test result does not automatically identify an employee or applicant as having used dugs. An individual with a detailed knowledge of possible alternate medical explanations is essential to the review of the results. This review is performed by the MRO prior to giving the results to the employer. The MRO is a licensed physician with knowledge of substance abuse disorders. A list of the MRO's duties can be found at 49 CFR sections 382.407 and 382.408 and Part 40 of the federal regulations. Those duties include: a. Notifications to the Employer The medical review officer may report to the employer in any manner, but must forward a signed written notification within three business days of completion of the medical officer's review. The report shall include: 1. Indication that the drug test met the requirements of part 40 drug testing procedures; 2. The name of the person tested; 3. The type of test; 4. The date and location of the specimen collection; December 1995 13 identity of the persons/entities perf°rming collection, analysis and the 5. The tY MRO; - 6. The verified results of the drug test and, if positive, the identity of the drugs testing positive; and 7. The fact that the MRO made reasonable efforts to contact the driver. b. Recordkeeping The MRO will keep the following records: 1. Positive drug test results for five years. 2 Negative and canceled drug test results for one year. C. Confidentiality Q a specific, Q test results without first obtaining P however, shall prohibit a The MRO cannot release individual drug er or to officials of the Secretary written authorization from the lease n dnvo the employ • s with regulatory medical review officer from or any State or local official to test of Transportation, any DOT agency,Q roaram, information relating authority over the controlled substances testing p results. d. Medical Review Duties The Medical Review Officer is responsible for the following: employer. er. I. Revie w the results of drug testing before they are reported to the P Y d posit ive test result as follows to Review and interpret each confirmeP lanation for the confirmed 2 determine if there is an alternative medical exp positive result: or any other relevant a Conduct a medical intervie di � history, heindividual tested. () (b) Review the individuals me biomedical factors.le the individual tested to (c) Review all medical recordspositivesidtests resulted ed from legally prescribed determine if a confirm medication. report and assessment are correct. (d) Verify that the laboratory P 14 December 1995 ate medicexplanation, other than 3. If the MRO concludes there is a 1 eati ositive result the MRO will declare the prohibited drug use, for a confirm p test to be negative. ure that it is complete and sufficient on its 4. Review the chain of custody to ens face. 5. Contact the tested individual directly, on a the testconfidential fidenti l bfasiafteo determine making all whether the employee wishes to discuss to reasonable efforts and documenting them,tact the mpOyerus designated reach the individual directly, the MRO will co management official who will direct the individual to contact the MRO as soon as possible. 6. The MRO will not disclose to any third paw' any medical information provided by the individual except, the MRO may disclose such information to the employer, a DOT agency or a physician responsible for determining the medical qualification of the employee under an applicable DOT agency regulation only if: (a) An applicable DOT regulation permits or requires such disclosure; or (b) In the MRO's reasonable judgment, information rm qualified undercould lann the employee being determined to be medically applicable DOT agency rule; or (c) In the MRO Is reasonable judgment, the information indicates continued performance by the employee of a safety - -sensitive function could pose a significant safety risk. 7. Before obtaining medical information from the employee as part of the verification process, the MRO will inform the emploavrtiesh o whom the e tat information may be disclosed to third parties and the identity of any p information may be disclosed. The MRO may verify a test as positive without direct communication with the 8 P ortunity to discuss the employee if the employee expressly declines the o p test or if the designated employer official has s dandocumented hour the a co tact with the employee and more than five days passed receiving any communication from the eRmpOlon orma on documenting verification occurs, the employee may present the M unavoidable circumstances which prevented the employee from timely MRO may reopen the contacting the NIRO. Based on this information, the verification. 15 December 1995 9, Following the verification of a positive test result, the MRO will, as provided in the employer's policy, refer the ementcase oofficial empowered to recomm ethe employer's employee nd d proam, to the employer's manaa take administrative action, or both. 10. Before the iVIRO verifies a confirmed positive in additiont to the urine test ofor opiates, e f will determine there is clinical evidence, unauthorized use of any opium, opiate, or opium derivative. the 11. If the employer has used a single sample tmethod, ate empoO will has 72 heath in who has a confirmed pose tive which to request a re -analysis of the original specimen. If the employee makes such a request, the MRO will order, in writing, a re -analysis. 12. If the MRO questions the accuracy of any test result, only the MRO may require that the original specimen be re -analyzed. 13. Determine whether and when DOT rocedures refusedloyee who t pass maybe returned to duty a drug test administered under p 14. Determine a schedule of unannounced d ng in to duty.consultation with the operator for an employee who h as ployee has been drug s to da Y procedures before accordance with DOT 15. Ensure that an emthe employee re 8.3 Testing Laboratory. The testing laboratory for this policy is: MEDEXPRESS 4022 Willow Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38118 Phone: 800/526-6339 Fax: 701/258-2637 art The testing laboratory will comply with all methods and procedure rtisum me49 mo show � end will provide annual reports to The Consortium and to each satisfactorily perform compliance. In the event that the designated laboratoryill desis ignate o gnate an alternative services required under this program, The Consortium laboratory. 16 December 1995 a. The Consortium, through AdMed, will have a written contract with the lab which will require the lab to: 1. Maintain employee test records in confidence; and 2. Disclose information related to a positive drug test to the individual, the employer, or the decision maker in a lawsuit or other proceeding initiated by or on behalf of the individual and arising from a certified positive drug test. b. Drug testing labs must be secure at all times and must restrict access to specifically authorized individuals whose authorization is documented. Documentation of individuals accessing drug testing areas, dates, and time and purpose of entry will be maintained. Reporting Results 1. The lab will report test results to the employer's Medical Review Officer. Before any test result is reported, it will be reviewed and the test certified as an accurate report by the individual conducting the test. 2. Only confirmed positive specimens will be reported positive for a specific drug. 3. The lab may transmit results to the Medical Review Officer by various electronic means so long as they are designed to ensure confidentiality by limiting access to the transmission. Results may not be provided verbally by telephone. 4. The lab will provide a monthly statistical summary of urinalysis testing for each employer and the consortium. This analysis will not include any identifying information so that it is not likely that information about individual's tests can be inferred. This summary will be delivered to each employer by registered or certified mail not more than 14 calendar days after the end of the month covered by the summary. d. Quality Assurance and Quality Control All drug testing labs must have quality assurance and control procedures to monitor each step of the drug testing process. As part of the quality control process the consortium will submit blind samples on behalf of consortium members. The consortium will submit three blind performance test specimens for each 100 employee specimens it submits for testing, up to a maximum of 100 blind performance test specimens per quarter. December 1995 17 2. The consortium will provide documentation to participating members showing the number of blind samples sent to the lab vs. the total number of samples submitted to the lab. Individual Access to Test and Laboratory Certification Results test will, upon Any employee who has undergone a drug making a written request, test and any records have access to any records relating to the employee's drug relating to the results of any relevant certification, review, or revocation of certification proceedings. um 8.4 Collection Agencies (For Urine Specimens). l uilize the order es of numeroprovide us collection sites convenience to employees, the pro�r throughout the state. A listing of collection sites is contained in a separate section of this manual. Each collection agency will comply with all methods and procedures of 49 CFR Part 40 and will provide required reports. velop and include amaintain procedure for collection, shipment, The consortium and the lab will de and access to urine specimens which will inc minimum: incustody and control form which identifies data on the a. Use of a standard drug test donor and on the specimen collection and transferprocess. b. Use of a clean, split specimen bottle that is securely wrapped until filled with the specimen. The bottle will only be unwrapped immediately before being given to the employee and in the presence of the employee to be tested. C. Use of a tamper proof sealing for the specimen bottle. d. Use of a shipping container that will prevent undetected tampering. cluding son e. Written procedures and instructions inemphasis specimen coll ction Land transfeion site r, is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the carefully ensuring the modesty and privacy of the donor; that the collection site arks that person is to avoid any conduct or remmight be understood ticable, a direct atiions or accus which are offensive or inappropriate; that unlessP supervisor of an employee will not serve as the dcobiy ction site non -medical cal personnelerson for , or is employee; that if a collection must bemonitoredy gender as the directly observed, the collection site person will be of the same o employee giving the sample. 18 December 1995 SECTION 9. ALCOHOL TESTING PROCEDURES 9.1 General Requirements. The general requirements for alcohol testing under this program are as follows: _ a. Alcohol testing will be performed using breath or saliva samples. b. Upon notification that an alcohol test is required, a driver will report for alcohol testing and provide a breath or saliva specimen. Since delay in reporting after notification can adversely affect the outcome of a test result, the time allowed for employees to report for alcohol testing after receiving notice will be travel time plus thirty (30) minutes. C. The party conducting alcohol tests will adhere to all requirements outlined in 49 CFR Part 40, Procedures for Transnortation Workplace Alco ot Testing Program. 9.2 Screening Tests. Alcohol screening tests will be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: a. The screening test may be conducted using non -evidential alcohol screening devices, either breath or saliva, or evidential breath testing devices (EBTs). b. Evidential Breath Testing Devices (EBTs) Procedures. 1. The Breath Alcohol Technician and the driver will complete sections one and two, respectively, of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form, a sample of which is found in Appendix A of the 'Rules' section. If the driver refuses to sign this certification, the driver will be considered to have refused to take the alcohol test. 2. An individually -sealed mouthpiece will be opened in front of the employee and the Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) and will be attached to the Evidential Breath Testing Device (EBT). 3. The Breath Alcohol Technician will tell the employee to blow forcefully into the mouthpiece for at least 6 seconds or until the EBT indicates that an adequate amount of breath has been obtained. 4. If the result of the test is an alcohol concentration of less than .02, the Breath Alcohol Technician will date and sign the certification in Step 3 of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form. The driver will sign the certification and fill in the date in Step 4 of the form. December 1995 19 5. If the driver does not sign Step 4 of the form, the Breath Alcohol Technician will note such failure in the "Remarks" section of the form. The driver's failure to sign Step 4 of the form does not constitute a refusal to be tested 6. If the test result is an alcohol concentration of less than .02, no further testing is authorized for that particular test session. The Breath Alcohol Technician will transmit the results to the employer in a confidential manner and the employer will store the test results. Statistical information about alcohol test results will be provided to the consortium for compilation and distribution to consortium participants. 7. If the result of the initial test is an alcohol concentration of .02 or greater, a confirmation test will be performed. If the confirmation test is completed by a different Breath Alcohol Technician, the original Breath Alcohol Technician will complete and sign the Breath Alcohol Testing Form and provide the driver with Copy 2 of the form. Saliva and Other Non-EBT Procedures Only certified screening devices may be used. The test will be conducted by a screening test technician (STT) who has completed a course of instruction and demonstrated a proficiency in using the device. 2. The location for the test will meet the same privacy requirements as for an EBT. The STT will supervise only one driver at a time and will remain with the driver during the test. 9.3 Confirmation Tests. If the result of the initial test is an alcohol concentration of .02 or greater, another alcohol test will be completed to confirm the results. If the confirmation test is conducted at a different site, the driver will be monitored during transit by the BAT or other designated person. The driver will not be allowed to drive, perform safety -sensitive functions, or operate heavy equipment during the waiting period All EBTs used for confirmation tests must be capable of providing a printed result in triplicate and assigning a unique sequential number to each test. The confirmation test will be administered as follows: a. Waiting Period 1. The Breath Alcohol Technician will wait at least 15 minutes, but no longer than 30 minutes, after the completion of the initial test before administering the confirmation test. If the confirmation test is not done within 30 minutes the test will still be valid. December 1995 20 2. The driver is not to eat, drink, put any object or substance in his or her mouth, and not to belch during the waiting period before the confirmation test. 3. The reason for the waiting period and the restrictions on the driver's activities during that -time is for the employee's benefit to prevent any accumulation of mouth alcohol leading to an artificially high reading. 4. The test will be conducted at the end of the waiting period, even if the employee has disregarded the instruction regarding the limitation of activities during the waiting period. 5. If a driver does not comply with the waiting period instruction, the Breath Alcohol Technician will so note in the "Remarks" section of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form. b. If a Breath Alcohol Technician other than the one who conducted the initial test is conducting the confirmation test, the new BAT will use a new Breath Alcohol Testing Form and will require the driver to complete the appropriate sections both before and after testing. A new mouthpiece will be used for the confirmation test and the same procedures will be used for administering the test as were used in administering the initial test. d. The Breath Alcohol Technician will ensure that the EBT registers 0.00 on an air blank before administering the confirmation test. If the reading is greater than 0.00, testing will not proceed using that instrument. However, testing may proceed on another instrument. e. If the initial and confirmation test results are not the same, the confirmation test result is considered to be the final result upon which any action in regard to the driver will be based. 9.4 Problems With Testing. The following is a list of procedures to be followed in the event of testing problems: a. Refusals to test and uncompleted tests Refusal by a driver to complete and sign the Breath Alcohol Testing Form Step 2, to provide an adequate amount of breath, or otherwise to cooperate with the testing process in a way that prevents the completion of the test, will be noted by the Breath Alcohol Technician in the "Remarks" section of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form. The Breath Alcohol Technician will end the testing process and will immediately notify the employer. December 1995 21 2. If a screening or confirmation test cannot be completed, or if an event occurs that would invalidate the test, the Breath Alcohol Technician will, if practicable, begin a new test using a new Breath Alcohol Testing Form. b. Inability of Driver -to provide an adequate amount of breath If a driver is unable, or alleges that he or she is unable, to provide an amount of breath sufficient to complete a breath test because of a medical condition, the following procedures will be followed: 1. Breath Alcohol Technician (a) The Breath Alcohol Technician will tell the driver to try to provide an adequate amount of breath. If the driver refuses to make the attempt, the Breath Alcohol Technician will immediately inform the employer. (b) If the driver attempts and fails to provide an adequate amount of breath, the Breath Alcohol Technician will so note in the "Remarks" section of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form and immediately inform the employer. 2. Employer (a) The employer will tell the driver to obtain, as soon as practical after the attempted provision of breath, an evaluation from a licensed physician concerning the employee's medical ability to provide an adequate amount of breath. (b) If the physician determines, in his or her reasonable medical judgment, that a medical condition has prevented the driver from providing an adequate amount of breath, the driver's failure to provide an adequate amount of breath will not be considered a refusal to take the test. (c) If the physician is unable to determine that a medical condition has prevented the driver from providing an adequate amount of breath, the driver's failure to provide an adequate amount of breath is considered a refusal to take the test. (d) The physician will provide the employer a written statement of the basis for the physician's conclusion. C. Invalid Tests A breath alcohol test will be invalid under the following circumstances: December 1995 22 1. The next external calibration check of an EBT shows that the machine is inaccurate. In this event, every test result of .02 or greater obtained on the device since the last valid external calibration check is invalid. 2. The BreathfAlcohol Technician does not observe the minimum 15-minute wait period prior to a confirmation test. 3. The Breath Alcohol Technician does not perform an air blank of the EBT before a confirmation test, or an air blank does not result in a reading of 0.00 prior to or after the administration of the test. 4. The Breath Alcohol Technician does not sign the Breath Alcohol Testing Form as required. 5. The Breath Alcohol Technician does not note on the "Remarks" section of the Breath Alcohol Testing Form that the employee has failed or refused to sign the form following the recording or printing on or attachment to the form of the test result. 6. The EBT fails to print a confirmation test result. 7. There is a difference between the sequential test number or alcohol test result displayed on the EBT and the sequential test number or alcohol test result on the printed result. 9.5 Testing Sites. The following shall apply to alcohol testing sites used in this program: a. The testing location must provide the driver being tested with privacy sufficient to prevent unauthorized people from seeing or hearing test results. b. Access to the testing location will be limited to authorized people when the EBT is not in a secure place or, when testing is being conducted. C. The only time a test will be conducted outside of the selected testing site will be when it is essential to perform the test at the scene of an accident. The employer will provide the employee with the greatest privacy possible under such circumstances in an effort to prevent unauthorized people from seeing or hearing test results. 9.6 Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT). The following shall apply to breath alcohol technicians under this program: a. Training December 1995 23 The BAT must be trained to proficiency in the operation of the EBT he or she is using and in the alcohol testing procedures of 49 CFR Part 40. 2. Proficiency is demonstrated by successful completion of a course which provides training in EBT methodology, operation, and calibration checks; the fundamentals of breath analysis for alcohol content; and the procedures required for obtaining a breath sample, and interpreting and recording EBT results. 3. Courses must be equivalent to a DOT model course as determined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA will review a BAT instruction course for equivalency. 4. The course must provide documentation that the BAT has demonstrated competence in the operation of the specific EBT(s) he or she will use. 5. Any BAT who will perform an external calibration check of an EBT will be trained to proficiency in conducting the check on the particular model of EBT, to include practical experience and demonstrated competence in preparing the breath alcohol simulator or alcohol standard, and in maintenance and calibration of the EBT. 6. The BAT must receive additional training as needed to ensure proficiency conceming new or additional devices or changes in technology that the BAT will use. b. Parties Who May Act as a BAT Generally the direct supervisor of an employee may not act as BAT for that employee's alcohol test. However, a BAT qualified supervisor of an employee may conduct the alcohol test for that employee if, and only if, another BAT is unavailable to perform the test in a timely manner. 2. Law enforcement officers certified by state or local governments to conduct breath alcohol tests are deemed to be qualified as BATS. Such officers must be certified to use the EBT that is used for the test to qualify under DOT alcohol testing requirements. C. The BAT will not leave the alcohol testing location while the testing procedure is in progress. d. The BAT will require the driver to provide positive identification when the driver enters the alcohol testing location. Positive identification will be through the use of a photo I.D. card or identification by an employer representative. December 1995 24 e. The BAT will provide the driver with positive identification if the driver makes such a request. f. The BAT will explain the testing procedure to the driver before starting the testing process. _ g. If the EBT provides a printed result, but does not print the results directly onto the Breath Alcohol Testing Form, the Breath Alcohol Technician will show the driver the result displayed on the EBT. The Breath Alcohol Technician will then affix the test result printout to the Breath Alcohol Test Form using a method that will provide clear evidence of tampering. h. If the EBT prints the test results directly onto the Breath Alcohol Testing Form, the Breath Alcohol Technician will show the employee the result displayed on the EBT. I. Reporting of test results to the employer 1. The Breath Alcohol Technician will transmit all test results to the designated employer representative in a confidential manner. 2. If the results require the employer to prevent the driver from performing a safety -sensitive function the Breath Alcohol Technician will ensure the results are transmitted immediately. 3. Such transmission may be in writing, in person, by phone or electronically. 4. If the initial transmission of test results is not in writing, the Breath Alcohol Technician will follow the initial transmission by providing the employer with a copy of the.Breath Alcohol Testing Form. December 1995 25 9.7 Employer Duties. The employer's duties in conducting alcohol testing under this program include: a. Breath Alcohol Testing form 1. The employer will ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician uses the three- part form required by the federal regulations. 2. The parts of the form are as follows: Copy 1 (white) will be kept by the BAT; Copy 2 (green) will be given to the employee; Copy 3 (blue) will be transmitted to the employer for recordkeeping. b. The employer will designate one or more employer representatives for the purpose of receiving and handling alcohol testing results in a confidential manner. All communications by Breath Alcohol Technicians concerning alcohol test results will be to a designated employer representative. If test results are reported in any way other than writing, the employer will verify the identity of the Breath Alcohol Technician. d. The employer will establish documentation of the training and proficiency of each Breath Alcohol Technician it uses to test employees. e. The employer will comply with the NHTSA-approved quality assurance plan for each EBT it uses for alcohol testing including: 1. ensuring that external calibration checks of each EBT are performed as required; 2. taking an EBT out of service if any external calibration check results in a reading outside tolerance levels; 3. ensure that inspection, maintenance and calibration of each EBT are performed by appropriate parties; 4. ensure that each Breath Alcohol Technician who performs an external calibration check is qualified to do so; and 5. store the EBT in a secure space when it is not in use at a testing site. December 1995 26 SECTION 10. INFORMATION AND TRAINING 10.1 Education. Every employee covered by this policy will receive the following drug and alcohol use education prior to the start of testing: a. Person available to answer questions about the materials; b. Categories of drivers subject to testing, C. Description of safety -sensitive position; d. Specific information on conduct which is prohibited; e. Circumstances when drivers will be tested; f. Testing procedures to protect the driver and integrity of testing process; g. Requirement that testing is required; h. Explanation of refusal to submit to testing and the consequences; Consequences of engaging in prohibited conduct; j. Consequences of alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04; k. Information on effects of substance abuse on an individual's health, work, and personal life; signs of a substance abuse problem; and available methods of intervening when a problem is suspected. This information may consist of the employer's substance abuse prevention program and policy. MMUA also has a videotape you may rent - `Whatever Happened to Dick and Jane' - that would help meet this requirement. The policy will be made available to each employee and displayed in the work area. Each employee will sign a statement certifying that the employee has received a copy of the materials. If drug or alcohol counseling and/or rehabilitation is available through the employer, information about such assistance will be given to each employee and displayed in the work area. 10.2 Supervisor Training. Every supervisor covered by this policy who will determine whether a driver must submit to a reasonable suspicion drug or alcohol test will receive at least two hours of training on the specific, contemporaneous physical, behavioral, speech, and performance indicators of December 1995 27 probable drug or alcohol abuse. One hour will cover alcohol misuse and one hour will relate to drug use. A list of each management or supervisory position which will be subject to EAP training is attached to this policy as Appendix C. SECTION 11. DRIVER REFERRAL, EVALUATION AND TREATMENT 11.1 Drivers Engaged In Prohibited Drug/Alcohol Use. A driver who has engaged in prohibited conduct (See section 6) will be: a. Immediately removed from the performance of safety -sensitive functions; b. Advised by the employer of resources available to the driver in evaluating and resolving drug or alcohol abuse problems including names, addresses, and phone numbers of substance abuse professionals and counseling and treatment programs; Evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine what assistance, if any, is necessary; d. Subject to return to duty drug and alcohol tests. For drugs, the driver must have a negative test result before being allowed to perform safety -sensitive functions. For alcohol, the driver must have a test result of less than .02 before being allowed to perform safety -sensitive functions. 11.2 Drivers Identified as Needing Assistance. Drivers identified as needing assistance will be: a. Evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine that the driver has followed any rehabilitation program properly; b. Subject to unannounced follow up drug or alcohol tests under the following guidelines: 1. The number and frequency of follow up tests will be determined by a substance abuse professional and will consist of at least six tests in the first twelve months; 2. The employer may direct the employee to undergo return to duty and follow up drug or alcohol tests if the substance abuse professional determines such tests are necessary; 3. Follow-up testing will not exceed 60 months from the date of the driver's return to duty; and December 1995 28 4. The substance abuse professional may end testing after the first six tests if such tests are no longer necessary. 11.3 Evaluation and Treatment Services. The following shall apply to evaluation and treatment services provided under this program: a. Evaluation and rehabilitation may be performed by a substance abuse professional provided by the employer; a substance abuse professional under contract with the employer; or by a substance abuse professional not affiliated with the employer; b. The employer will ensure the substance abuse professional who determines a driver needs assistance does not refer the driver to the substance abuse professional's private practice; an entity from which the substance abuse professional receives remuneration; or an entity in which the substance abuse professional has a financial interest unless such assistance is provided by a public agency; the employer or an entity under contract with the employer; the sole source of treatment under the driver's health insurance program; or the sole source of treatment reasonably accessible to the driver. The choice of substance abuse professional and assignment of costs will be made based on employer policies and agreements between the employer and drivers. 11.4 Scope. The policies governing the referral, evaluation and treatment of drivers do not apply to applicants who refuse to submit to pre -employment tests or to applicants having a verified positive pre -employment drug test result or a pre -employment alcohol test result of .04 or greater. December 1995 29 SECTION 12. RECORDKEEPING 12.1 Security and Inspection. The employer will maintain records of its drug and alcohol programs in a secure location with controlled access for the periods specified. These records will be available for inspection at the employer's principal place of business within two business days of a request by an authorized representative of the Federal Highway Administration. 12 2 Time -Frame for Record Retention. Records will be retained for the following periods: a. Records to be kept for 5 years: 1. Verified positive drug test results and alcohol test results indicating an alcohol concentration of .02 or greater; 2. Documentation of refusal to take drug or alcohol tests; 3. Driver evaluation referrals; 4. Annual Calendar year summary prepared pursuant to section 382.403. b. Records to be kept for 2 years: 1. Other records relating to the collection/testing process; 2. Training records. C. The employer will keep negative and canceled drug test results for one year. The employer will keep alcohol test results with a concentration of less than .02 for one year. 12.3 Records to be Kept. The employer will maintain the following records: a. Records relating to the collection process including: 1. Collection logbooks, if used; 2. Random selection process documents; 3. Documents related to decisions to administer reasonable suspicion tests; 4. Documents related to decisions on post -accident tests; December 1995 30 5. Medical explanations for the inability of a driver to provide a urine sample for testing; 6. Consolidated annual calendar year summaries; 7. Alcohol Specific Requirements (a) Calibration documentation for evidential breath testing devices; (b) Documentation of Breath Alcohol Technician; Training. b. Records related to drivers' test results: 1. Drug Specific Requirements (a) Employer's copy of the drug test chain of custody and control form; (b) Documents sent by the MRO to the employer; 2. Alcohol Specific Requirements Employer's copy of the alcohol test form, including test results; 3. Documents related to drivers' refusal to submit to a required test; 4. Documents submitted by drivers to dispute test results. Records related to other violations of the law governing drug or alcohol programs; d. Evaluation records including records pertaining to a substance abuse professional's determination of a driver's need for assistance; and records concerning a driver's compliance with the recommendations of a substance abuse professional. e. Education and training records including: 1. Awareness records including the employer's drug and alcohol abuse policy; 2. Documentation of compliance with education requirements including each driver's signed receipt of educational materials; 3. Documentation of supervisor training for reasonable -suspicion testing; 4. Certification that all training complies with regulatory requirements. Drug testing records including: 1. Agreements with collection sites, labs, MRO's and the Consortium; December 1995 31 2. Names and positions of officials and their roles in the employer's testing program; 3. Monthly lab statistical summaries of urinalysis; 12.4 Management Information System. The employer will prepare and maintain an annual calendar year summary of the results of its drug and alcohol testing program for the previous calendar year by March 15 of each year. If notified in January, the employer is required to submit the report to the Federal Highway Administration by March 15. a. Drug Specific Requirements of the Summary 1. Calendar year summaries that indicate one or more verified positive drug tests will include the following information: (a) Number of drivers subject to part 382; (b) Number of drivers subject to drug use rules of more than one DOT agency, organized by DOT agency; (c) Number of urine specimens collected, organized by type of test; (d) Number of positive drug tests, and type of drugs, verified by a MRO, organized by type of test; (e) Number of negative drug tests verified by a MRO, organized by type of test; (f) Number of persons denied a position by pre -employment test; (g) Number of drivers verified positive for multiple drugs; (h) Number of drivers who refused testing; (i) Number of supervisors who received drug training during the year; (j) Number of drivers returned to duty who previously had a verified positive drug test; (k) Number of drivers given a drug and alcohol test at the same time who had a verified positive drug test and an alcohol concentration of .04 or Cr greater; (1) Number of drivers violating non -testing provisions of the federal regulations and any responsive action. December 1995 32 2. Calendar Year Summaries with no violations can be recorded on an "EZ" report form containing: (a) Number of drivers subject to part 382; (b) Number of drivers subject to the drug use rules of more than one DOT agency, organized by DOT agency; (c) Number of urine specimens collected, organized by type of test; (d) Number of negative test results verified by an MRO, organized by type of test; (e) Number of drivers who refused testing; (f) Number of supervisors who received drug training during the year; (g) Number of drivers returned to duty who previously had a verified positive drug test. b. Alcohol Specific Requirements 1. Calendar year summaries that indicate one or more alcohol test result of .02 or greater, or any other of the alcohol misuse provisions of Subpart B will include the following information: (a) Number of drivers subject to part 382; (b) Number of drivers subject to testing under the alcohol misuse rules or more than one DOT agency, organized by DOT agency; (c) Number of persons denied a position by pre -employment alcohol test; (d) Number of drivers who refused testing; (e) Number of supervisors who received alcohol training during the year; (f) Number of screening alcohol tests, by type of test; (g) Number of confirmation alcohol tests, by type of test; (h) Number of confirmation alcohol tests indicating alcohol concentration of .02 or greater, but less than .04, by type of test; (i) Number of confirmation alcohol tests indicating an alcohol concentration of .04 or greater, by type of test; (j) Number of drivers returned to duty who previously engaged in prohibited alcohol misuse under these regulations; (k) Number of drivers given a drug and alcohol test at the same time who had a verified positive drug test and an alcohol concentration of .04 or greater; (1) Number of drivers violating non -testing provisions of these regulations and any responsive action. 2. Calendar Year Summaries with no alcohol screening tests of .02 or greater can file an "EZ" report form containing: (a) Number of drivers subject to part 382; December 1995 33 ect to the alcohol misuse rules of more than Number of drivers subs DOT agency; (b) gency, orgaruzed by one DOT a Q during the year; Number of drivers who refused testing: alcohol training (d of supervisors who received al (d) Number alcohol tests by type of test; and ed in n al Q (e) Number drivers returned to duty who previously engag of scree (fl Number of alcohol misuse. each prohibited al cram will identify alcohol or drug p1og will be by the total ore than one DOT such driver, to ers subject tom O-r agency. The identification Emp y more than one D any drug test on any C. require the test. The driver covered by prior to condu ltin authorize or req Qencies. number of covered fL rmi ne which agency rules agency or a. will determin appropriate DOT a. the employer. manes and reports for the employer `h'ill direct the test results to the aPP sum will remain P calendar year d will prepare annual an and submit such a report an The Consortium the employer will sa timeliness of each report the consortium d• However, employer• the accuracy an responsible for ensuring pfepares on its behalf. TO FACILITIES AND CORDS ACCESS the employer shall be as SECTION 13• d records held by Employer Records. Access to facilities an 13.1 g or alcohol follows: anon that is containedin drug driver. driver inform express authorized by will not rele ee uued by law or a The employerrecords pertaining program records except as q to obtain copies of any The employet will written request, any test records. b A driver is entitled, upon s or alcohol, including ill not make access to the records to the drivers u$e of drug ver specifically requested• give these recoa o ° the rds other than those sp promptly a on payment ling with the drug contingent up comp Y regulatory C. The employer will Permit access to all facilities local officials with re. d alcohol prOgrarn laws to federal, eder anVe is an or its cram authority over the employerd other program all drug °r'e and local Officials test re!lith regulatory .rhe employer will makestate an d' anon available. federal, requested. inform drivers when req nistration of over the employer or its drl to ers admi ational Transport Safety' Board as ill disclose information related to the employer's The employer w requested by the N e. when req Qation. post accident tests elated accident invest'. part of a r 34 December 1995 f. The employer will provide records to subsequent employers upon written request from a driver and only as expressly authorized by the terms of the driver's request. g. The employer may provide information to a driver or decision maker when a grievance or otherproceedinghas been initiated by or on behalf of the driver which arises from the results of a drug or alcohol test given by the employer, or from the employer's determination that the driver engaged in prohibited conduct. Such proceedings may pertain, but are not limited to, workers compensation, unemployment compensation or other benefits sought by the driver. h. The employer will release information regarding a driver's records as directed by the specific, written consent of the driver authorizing the release of the information to an identified person and only in accordance with the terms of the driver's consent. 13.2 Previous Employer. Access to records held by a previous employer are as follows: a. The employer _wjU obtain, pursuant to a drivers consent, information on the driver's positive drug test results; alcohol test results of .04 or greater and refusals to be tested for drugs or alcohol within the preceding two years. The employer will obtain and review this information no later than 14 days after the first time a driver performs a safety -sensitive function for the employer, even if the driver stops performing safety - sensitive functions before 14 days have passed. The employer may not permit a driver to perform safety -sensitive functions after 14 days without obtaining the information. b. The employer may- obtain, pursuant to a driver's written consent, any of the information concerning the driver which is maintained, under this part, by the driver's previous employers. C. The employer requesting information from previous employers within the previous 2 years must provide those employers with the driver's written authorization for release of the information. d. Release of information may be done by any method ensuring confidentiality. Each employer will maintain a written, confidential record with respect to each past employer contacted. e. The employer will not use a driver for safety -sensitive functions if the employer obtains information showing a verified positive drug test result; an alcohol test result of .04 or greater or a refusal to be tested unless the employer obtains information on a subsequent substance abuse professional's evaluation. December 1995 35 DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING CONSORTIUM SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM Appendix A Substance Abuse Prevention Policy Name of Organization December 1995 DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING CONSORTIUM SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAIM Appendix B Employee Positions Subject to Drug and :alcohol Testing Name of Organization List below, by title or description, all positions in your organization for which drug testing is required under 49 CFR, Part 382. Include the current number of employees for each position. See section 2 of the vLMUA program for more information. Title or description of employee position December 1995 DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING CONSORTIUM SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM Appendix C Management or Supervisory Personnel Subject to Employee Assistance Program Training Name of Organization List below, by title or description, all positions in your organization for which Employee Assistance Program (EAP) training is required under 49 CFR. Part 382. Include the current number of employees for each position. See section 10.2 of the �IMUA program for more information. Title or description of emvlovee position December 1995 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 5P RESOLUTION #1996- 16 A RESOLUTION MAKING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DETACHMENT / ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITIES OF ALBERTVILLE AND OTSEGO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Albertville is desirous of appointing special legal counsel to represent the City before the Municipal Board in the proceeding requesting detachment and annexation to Albertville of parcels of land in the City of Otsego, in Municipal Board D-330 Otsego / A-5613 Albertville, D-313 Otsego / A5410 Albertville, and D329 Otsego / A5612 Albertville: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, appoints: Special Counsel Peter J. Schmitz Schmitz & Ophaug 220 South Division Street P. 0. Box 237 Northfield, Minnesota 55057 to file a Notice Of Appearance with the Minnesota Municipal Board in the said detachment/ annexation proceedings and to fully represent the interests of the City of Albertville in said proceedings. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Potter, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Houghton, City Clerk LAW OFFICES OF SCHMITZ AND OPHAUG 220 DIVISION NoRTHFIELD. MINNESOTA 55057 P.O. BOX 237 PETER J. SCHMITZ NORTHFIELD 507-645-9541 JOHN M. OPHAUG TWIN CITIES 612-333-1831 TELECOPIER 507-645-8232 February 26, 1996 Garrison L. Hale, City Administrator City of Albertville 59"5 1_'vTain Avenue Northeast Albertville, Minnesota 55301 RE: Albertville Our File No. 11559 Dear Gary: As we discussed during our telephone conversation following the Municipal Board pre-trial which was held by conference call on February 22, 1996, the Mayor and the Council need to be advised as to the status of the various proceedings concerning the municipal boundaries of Albertville. Because there are three separate and distinct proceedings -- all going on at the same time -- they are reviewed separately below. To the extent that Council action is required with respect to one or more of the proceedings, the issues which need Council action are identified in the discussion of each separate proceeding. CONSOLIDATION As you are aware, the Municipal Board has now named St. Michael Mayor Roxanne Packa to chair the Consolidation Commission. The Municipal Board has also named eight representatives from Albertville and eight from Otsego to serve on the Commission. Once the Commission has met for the first time, I presume certain organizational and operational rules and procedures will be adopted. Hopefully, the Commission will designate some type of record keeping procedure -- such as Minutes. I really do think that detailed minutes of the Commission's discussions and decisions need to be kept. Assuming that the Commission does keep Minutes, and as a part of its routine procedure, reviews and adopts Minutes from the prior meeting, I would like to be copied on those Minutes. That would provide me with an easy and fairly non -time consuming method of keeping up with the Commission's progress and discussions. As I review Minutes, I may have some questions or comments, and as I do, I will pass them on to you and to the City Council for their consideration in their capacity as Consolidation Commissioners. ANNEXATION APPEAL As you and the City Council requested, I filed a Notice To Remove Judge Gary Meyer because he was a former Albertville City Attorney and because he is a current Otsego resident. The Court accepted my Notice To Remove, and Wright County District Judge Kim R. Johnson will now serve as the presiding judge for the appeal. The procedure for appealing a Municipal Board decision is unique. Rather than going to the Minnesota Court of Appeals -- as a normal appeal from a lower court decision -- it goes to a district judge sitting as a one man Court of Appeal. However, even though the appeal is heard by a trial judge, the proceedings in District Court are not a new trial. The district judge simply reviews the transcript, the written briefs of the parties, and the oral arguments, and then decides whether or not the decision of the administrative agency -- in this case the Minnesota Municipal Board -- had sufficient evidence to justify the decision it made. As I understand it, the standard for review is whether or not the decision of the Municipal Board was "arbitrary or capricious". The district judge which reviews the Municipal Board decision is not asked to substitute his judgment for that of the Municipal Board -- but only whether or not the decision of the Municipal Board was arbitrary or capricious. There is a strong presumption in favor of the Municipal Board decision, and it is rare that a district judge overturns a decision of the Municipal Board -- rare -- but not unheard of. Both Mr. Von Korff on behalf of Otsego, and Mr. D'Aigle on behalf of one of the petitioners, have agreed that it is in the best interest of all parties that this appeal be decided quickly. To that end, I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Von Korff to Judge Johnson and a copy of a letter from Mr. Von Korff to all of the lawyers involved in the appeal which suggests a schedule for filing briefs and making oral argument. In general, the briefs would be due no later than May 3, 1996, and it is hoped that the District Court would schedule oral arguments soon after that date -- and decide the case in late May or early June. Previously, the Council has authorized my appearance in this matter. However, I question whether or not it is "worth the money" to have me actively participate in the appeal. Assuming that Albertville supports the decision of the Municipal Board and feels generally that the decision is in its best interest, it would appear that at least three other lawyers will be taking the position before the District Court that the Municipal Board decision was correct. Mr. D'Aigle and Mr. Peake, representing the land owners, have the self-interest of their clients at heart -- and will of course argue that the Board decision should be affirmed. In addition, Ken Rasche, an Assistant Attorney General in St. Paul, specifically represents the Municipal Board, and he too will take the position before the District Court that his client -- the Minnesota Municipal Board -- was right in their decision. Only Mr. Von Korff -- on behalf of the City of Otsego -- will argue that the decision was wrong and should be overturned. Given the fact that three other lawyers on behalf of their clients will present the case in support of the Municipal Board decision, I question whether or not the City of Albertville wants to spend the money to have me review the transcripts, write a brief, and make oral argument to the District Court. Understand, I am more than willing to do so, but I think that the Council should carefully consider this before the expense is incurred. I am suggesting that a copy of this letter with a copy of the attachments be submitted to the Council with the other Agenda materials for the March 4, 1996 City Council Meeting. I would ask that the Council specifically address this question, and then let me know whether or not the Council wants me to actively participate in the appeal. If so, I will need to obtain a copy of the transcript of the trial before the Municipal Board so that I will have the necessary materials to prepare and submit a written brief. If the City decides that I will not actively participate in the appeal process, then I will so advise the Court that I will not file a formal brief on behalf of the City. However, I will also ask the Court and the parties that they serve copies of their briefs on me at the time they are filed with the Court. In that manner, I can provide copies to the Council, and I can also review the briefs as filed. If, after reviewing the briefs, I feel, or the Council feels, that the position of the City has not been adequately presented to the Court, then I will still have the option of appearing at oral argument before the Court and making an argument on behalf of the City. Once the Council has discussed and decided this question, please let me know their decision. If the Council wants to discuss -it with me, let me know that, and perhaps we can arrange for a conference call so that I can meet with them by telephone and not incur the expenses of driving up to attend a meeting. 1996 DETACHMENT / ANNEXATION These are the three petitions that were filed in December and endorsed by the Albertville Council in which Balfany Development, Bernard Roden, Bernard and Marlene Vetsch, and David and Bridget Vetsch seek simultaneous detachment of their property from the City of Otsego and annexation to the City of Albertville. A pre-trial telephone conference call was held on February 22, 1996. During that conference call, Mr. Von Korff on behalf of Otsego, and Mr. D'Aigle on behalf of his clients, and I agreed that this case should not be heard and decided by the Municipal Board until the appeal of the 1995 detachment/annexation cases has been decided by Wright County District Judge Kim Johnson -- provided -- that that can be accomplished within a reasonable time. The Municipal Board was sympathetic to that request, and accordingly, that hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 26, 1996. That date may well be changed depending upon how long it takes Judge Johnson to decide the appeal -- and depending upon the availability of Municipal Board members and witnesses for that particular date. In any event, it is anticipated that the hearing on these petitions would be held and hopefully completed sometime during the summer of 1996. As a practical matter, and to satisfy the statute, the hearing will be convened on March 8th. None of the attorneys or parties will be present. However, it must be convened to satisfy certain jurisdictional requirements of the statute. It will then be continued to a later date. The statute does require that the hearing must be completed and the petitions decided within one year -- so that the Municipal Board must decide these petitions no later than March 8, 1997. It is anticipated that the hearing will be completed and the decisions announced much earlier than that date. It was my position during the pre-trial that the City of Albertville is not actually a party to these proceedings. The Municipal Board agreed. However, the Municipal Board also agreed that it would consider -- should it become necessary -- a motion by any of the parties to join Albertville as a party. Apparently there was some concern because Albertville was not a party to the prior proceedings as to precisely how to obtain Albertville records -- and have Albertville personnel testify during the hearing. Although it is my anticipation that Mr. Von Korff will make a motion to join Albertville as a party, he has not done so to date. Again, keeping economics in mind, I don't know whether it is in the interest of the City of Albertville to spend the time and money to have me participate fully in the trial. I am more than willing to do so, but I don't think the City should spend the money -- unless it is absolutely necessary. At this point, the Council does not need to make that decision. I am on the mailing list for all of the lawyers and for the Municipal Board. I will be kept advised of whatever transpires in these matters. When I receive information from the Municipal Board, I will pass it on to the Council. I anticipate that there will be ongoing discussions between the petitioners and the City of Otsego --and perhaps the City of Albertville. I think we should simply keep ourselves informed as to the progress of those discussions, and the progress of the four petitions for detachment/annexation. It may be -- that later this spring you may feel it is necessary to be fully represented in these proceedings. If that is the case, if I know that four to six weeks in advance of the hearing date, I should have adequate time to prepare and protect Albertville's interest at hearing. I anticipate receiving a proposed stipulation from Jerry Von Korff regarding the continuance of these proceedings. If my office receives it before this letter is mailed, I will ask my secretary to simply attach it and forward it on to you for your information and the information of the Council. As you know, I will be out of my office until March 4, 1996. If you want to discuss any of these matters with me prior to the Council Meeting on March 4th, just call my office first thing that Monday morning, and if I miss your call, I'll get right back to you -- at least before noon that day. I don't plan to attend the Council Meeting on March 4th. If questions come up during the Council Meeting that can be answered by me, perhaps you could simply call me the following day, and I will provide answers to the Council's questions just as soon as I can. If anything else comes up on any of these matters in the meantime, just let my office know, and I will get back to you as quickly as I can. Finally, many of the issues raised in this letter may require further clarification. If the Council has some questions, or wants to meet with me, just let me know that, and I will find a time to meet with them. Thanks. Very truly yours, SCHMITZ & OPHAUG OICTATM BUT NOT PROOF READ BY LAWYER Peter J. Schmitz P %jr Enclosure P.S. As you can see from the stamp, I dictated this, but have not had the opportunity to proof read it. If there are any questions about any of the issues raised in this letter, please call me on Monday, March 4th, so that I can respond before your meeting that night. PJS Sr C-27-mm AlbertvilletOtsego BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert J. Ferderer Chair Paul B. Double Vice Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSOLIDATION ) PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITIES OF ALBERTVILLE ) RESOLUTION AND OTSEGO PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) STATUTES 414 1 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Board, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.041, has initiated consolidation proceedings involving the Cities of Albertville and Otsego; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 414.041 requires that upon the Board's Motion to Initiate consolidation proceedings, the Board shall appoint a Consolidation Commission from a list of ten candidates submitted by each affected city council; and WHEREAS, the Board shall appoint a Commission Chair who is not a resident of an affected municipality, but who resides in the affected county from a list of candidates submitted by each city council; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Board has received names for the Consolidation Chair and Consolidation Commission from both cities; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Roxanne Packa shall serve as Chair for the Consolidation Commission and that the following persons shall serve on the Consolidation Commission and shall hold office until a consolidation report has been issued by the Commission to the Municipal Board: �.-L- CITY OF ALBERTVILLE CITY OF OTSEGO Ken Tiernan Vern Heidner Curt Muyres _. �''' Ronald Black Michael Potter Suzanne Ac kemlan Sharon Anderson Jacquie Rognli Shawn Eastman David Sederberg Daniel Roberts John Darfkenwaid LeRoy Berning Nadine Aarvig John Vetsch I.G. Rcskaft FURTHER, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Consolidation Commission shall conduct hearings regarding the proposed consolidation. The hearings shall inciude, but are not limited to, the subjects listed in Minnesota Statutes 414.041, Subdivision 3 and Subdivision 5. Based on these subjects and factors, the Consoiidation Commission shall issue its findings and recommendations to the Minnesota Municipal Board within two years from the date of this Rescluticn. Dated this 16th day of February, 19%. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 475 McColl Building 366 Jackson Street St Paul, MN 55101-1925 Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ors WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 1996 - 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 300, 400, 500, AND 2700 OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE (1988-12) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR REZONINGS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND/OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS. - Section 1. Section 300.1(o) of Ordinance 1988-12 is hereby amended to read as follows: AMENDMENTS (o) Whenever an application for an amendment has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for the amendment affecting either a portion or all of the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows- 1 . Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly. 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. Section 2. Section 400.1(o) of Ordinance 1988-12 is hereby amended to read as follows: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (o) Whenever an application for a conditional use permit has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for a Conditional Use Permit affecting either a portion or all of the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows: 1. Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly. 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. 1 Section 3. Section 500.2(b)(2)(n) of Ordinance 1988-12 is hereby amended to read as follows: VARIANCES _ (n) Whenever an application for a major or minor variance has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for a variance affecting either a portion or all of the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows: Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly. 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. Section 4. Section 2700.4(a) of Ordinance 1988-12 is hereby amended to read as follows: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (a) General Processing Requirements. The Planned Unit Development request shall be processed according to Section 300 or Section 400 of this Chapter as may be applicable, except as herein modified. (1) Whenever an application for a concept stage, development stage, or final plan stage planned unit development has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for a Planned Unit Development affecting either a portion or all of the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows: 1. Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly. 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. K Section 5. This amendment shall be in full force and effective immediately following its passage and publication. Attest Approved by the Albertville City Council this day of , 1996. Linda Houghton, City Clerk CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 0 3 Michael Potter, Mayor FEB- _"-1'?ab O2 : HP: bl? CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 51t WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 1996 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION A-300 OF THE ALBERTVILLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PLATS OR SUBDIVISIONS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS. Section 1. Section A-300.2(a)(7) of the Albertville Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to add the following: PROCEDURES FOR FILING & REVIEW (7) Whenever an application for a subdivision (concept plan or preliminary plat) has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for a land division affecting either a portion or all of the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows: 1. Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly_ 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (416s) vote of the entire City Council. Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effective immediately following its passage and publication. Attest: Approved by the Albertville City Council this day of , 1996. Linda Houghton, City Clerk CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 0 Michael Potter, Mayor nir PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS Albertville, Minnesota February 5, 1996 To the City Council of Albemille, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent of the real property on the North side of Interstate 94 starting from Co. Rd. 37 to Maciver Ave. NE to 70th St. NE (See attached map) hereby petition that such property be improved by the construction of water lines pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. Signature of Owner Description of Property 1. STY/ , SALFANY DEV -OPMMT, INC. 2 6341 EDGEMONT BOULEVARD NO. Phone, 533-2391 �. 4. 7 5. 1 - 6. S-S— 3 74- 7 Oth S r et 726 76 10. 11. 12. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper from and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petiti for. City Clerk DECEMBER 1995 INVENTORY 16 Q� PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS Albertville, Minnesota February 5, 1996 To the City Council of Albertville, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent of the real property on the North side of Interstate 94 starting from Maciver Ave. NE to 70th SL NE (See attached map) hereby petition that such property be improved by the construction of sewer lines pursuant to Mumesota Statues, Chapter 429. Signature of Owner I Description of Property LLF 2 3. 6341 EDGEMONT BOULEVARD NO, MI NESOTA 55470 Qhona 533-2391 ti�7- 3��c 4. C 1 1,5. ell 3� v 6. 7 'ih r 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper from and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the impro ement petitio,nfor. City Clerk TOWNSHIP - SECTION - RANGE MAP t Section Boundaries Source: Wright Countv Survevor CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DECEMBER 1995 INVENTORY 16 ('0 C' COUNTY OF WR I OE T STATE OF IM11MITESOTA RESOLLPITION #19916-13 RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVFIIENT IS FE.AS I BLE AID ESTIMATED COST WHEREAS, tha .__1 Ccunc+,__ the City of Albertville ha_ received a petition signed by owners of not less than 35 percent c`_ the real property on the north side of Interstate 94 starting -rc^ MaCTver Avenue NE to ?Qth Street NE requesting that such property by improved by the construction of sewer lines; and WHEREAS, the -.1 Council would like additional informatian regarding the feasi'cll_ty of con..`_ructing the _ewer 1=nes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that t.,e Cit Council :f Al ertviT 1 e, Wr ;h`_ Count-, M_nnesota order 5:-. �t E:l_��_ Hendrickson, Inc. to proceed with a Feasibility Study to determine if the requested project is feasible. ADOPTED BY THE CITY --ZUNCIL Or THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Potter, Mavor ATTEST: Linda Houghton, City Clerk ff 0'7' ALE �;:�dP1T- T CDiJ�''f Off' 1aa'R I GHT_ STATE OF I^llNNESOTA RESOLUTION #1496-14 RESOLUTION! DIRECTING ENGINEER TO REPORT ETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND ESTIMATED COST WHEREAu, the City Ccuncil of t+"le City of received a petition s, g.-,;ed by owners of not less than 35 per^_ent cf the real property on the north side of Ir+terstate ]7"_ start_ ng f:: MacIver Avenue NE to ?Oth Street NE requesting that such proper _ by improved by the constructior+ cf Nate.: lines; and WHEREAS, the City Council :could __ka addit-:r+a� i..fcrmatior. regarding the of cons.tructir^ the _e!,e,- -^ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED _hay `_he - Albertville, Wright C 1: Nj' ��__- ou+ --- r innesota ora2r= -" _ Hendrickson, Inc. to proceed with a Feasibilit,r St_�d1� -,) de -er =ne if the requested project __ feasible. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 1996. Michael Dot t ar, M a vcr ATTEST: Linda Houghton, City Clerk February 27, 1996 TO: City Council FROM: City Engineer Carlson/CV� SUBJ: Frankfort Drainage 6 I would like to briefly go over updated information related to comments from State of MN - DNR, Wright County Soil & Water and so on related to the proposed update to the 8 inch drainage tile. 7ew od PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 13, 1996 Albertville City Hali 7:00 PM PRESENT: Chair LeRoy Berning (7:03 PM), Commission Members Howard Larson, Donatus Vetsch, Jim Brown, and Sharon Anderson, Planner Liz Stockman, Zoning Administrator Garrison Hale, and Deputy Zoning Administrator Lidda Houghton Acting Chair Anderson opened the meeting. Larson made a motion to approve the agenda with a discussion on the alleyway located on the Highland Banks property under the bank's site plan review. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. Vetsch made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 9, 1996, regular meeting as presented. Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye. Chair Berning arrived at the meeting at 7:O4 PM and took over the duties of Chair. Developer Kent Roessler requested that the preliminary plat approved for the Parkside 3rd Addition be withdrawn as he has proposed another concept plan for that property and the surrounding property he owns or has an option on. Brown made a motion to approve Roessler's request to withdraw preliminary plat approval for the Parkside 3rd Addition. Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Paul Ederer, representing Highland Bank, reviewed the proposal to expand the parking lot and drive -through areas by expanding on the adjoining property purchased by the bank. Ederer explained the reason for the expansion is to relieve congestion in the entrance area for a smoother flow of traffic. Commissioner Larson questioned why an alley had been created on the bank's lot line and who was liable should an accident occur as vehicles use the alleyway to enter Large Avenue. Ederer explained that the gravel was used for filling the basement area and was spread out. City Administrator Hale explained that former bank officer Doug Bleess had given the City the approval to use the alleyway until the expansion proposed occurs. Ederer stated that additional light standards may have to be added to the expanded parking and drive -through areas. Ederer was advised to contact the City regarding additional lights. Larson made a motion to approve the site plan for Highland Bank as presented. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 13, 1996 Page 2 of 4 Kent Roessler presented his concept plan for the Parkside. The concept plan for the 350 total acres requires a PUD zoning to accommodate the following: Single Family Lots 65 - 75' X 125' 121 - 80' X 125' 131 - 90' X 140' 22 - 100' X 160' i36 - Townhouses Cedar Creek 18 Hole Championship Park 5.7 acres, centrally (4-plex and 8-plex units) Golf Course. Par 71 located Roessler expects the entire 350 acres to be developed over a five year period. He projects the opening of the golf course in the fall of 1997 or spring of 1998. Roessler stated the increased density of the project will accommodate a broader mix of housing for to City. Residential density over the entire 350 acres is calculated at 1.35 homes per acre, even though the golf course encompasses a large portion of the total acreage. Kenco, Inc. will maintain architectural control over the entire plat. Planner Liz Stockman explained that the Commission needs to consider the increase in the total number cf lots and the increase in density. She also advised that the City cannot rezone until the all the property is in the City of Albertville. A portion of the golf course, as proposed, is under the jurisdiction of Frankfort Township. The Commission also needs to consider that the concept plan shown indicates the continuation of 53rd Street through a parcel of property not under Kenco's control. Commissioner Brown questioned the reason the area currently zoned as B-3 was being platted into townhouses. Roessler indicated he is willing to leave that portion zoned B-3 undeveloped for a period of five years if the City would agree that if the parcel is not sold for business uses in that time frame, Roessler will be able to develop it into townhouses. The other option pointed out is to make the golf course portion of the proposed PUD smaller, thereby allowing more single family larger (12,500 sq. ft.) lot sizes. Commissioner Anderson stated she is opposed to any lot sizes smaller than 12,500 sq. ft. Commissioner Brown would prefer to see all lots average 12,500 sq. ft., i.e. allowing some lots smaller than 12,500 sq. ft. but requiring some lots to be larger than 12,500 sq. ft. { PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 13, 1996 Page 3 of 4 Chair Berning -indicated that annexation of the Frankfort Township 60 acre portion of the proposed concept plan should occur prior to concept design being approved. Commissioner Larson prefers a ten year delay on development of the currently zoned B-3 property before it can be developed residentially. The concept plan should show this area platted as an outlet. The Commission concurred that the varied lot sizes are appropriate, however, the total average lot size should be in the 12,500 sq. ft. range. Because the proposed park land is less than the acreage required for this size development, Roessler agrees to pay for the improvement of the park, i.e. play equipment, grading, landscaping, etc. Roessler also agrees to allow the green spaces on the golf course to be used by the public. Provisions must be considered for the improvement of the street as proposed between the golf course and the Sylvester Kolles property. It was also suggested that the developer consider placing a street in the plat to eliminate the need for Kadler Avenue which would be under joint jurisdiction of the Cities of Albertville and Otsego. Anderson made a motion to table further discussion of the Kenco concept plan until February 26, 1996, at 7:00 PM with revisions as noted by the Commission, including varied lot sizes with an average of 12,500 sq. ft. Larson seconded the motion. Anderson, Larson, Berning and Vetsch voted aye. Brown voted no. The motion carried. The Commission reviewed the concept plan for the D'Aigle property recently annexed into the city. The concept shows 77 residential lots on the 66-acre parcel. All riparian lots have a minimum of 40,000 square feet and all non -riparian lots are a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The DNR has identified 17.3 acres of wetland. Because wetland delineation is difficult this time of year, more wetland acreage may be identified later. Some of the issues to be addressed regarding this concept plan are as follows: (1) MacIver Avenue will be under joint jurisdiction of the Cities of Albertville and Otsego. How will this affect improvements to the street? Should the Albertville portion of the street be vacated as unnecessary and the plat be served from 70th Street? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 13, 1996 Page 4 of 4 (2) Investigate the best alternative for sewer extensions (3) The outlot as shown should be considered for park and trails for public use (4) The plat should be single family only. The developer will resubmit his concept plan after the revisions suggested have been incorporated. The Commission also considered a revision to the sign ordinance concerning billboarsds. Concerns related to billboards being placed at 500 feet and this may be considered excessive. Brown made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 PM. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. LeRoy Berning, Chair Linda Houghton, Dep. Zoning Adm. PIING & ZONING COMUSSION -- February 26, 1996 Albertville City Hall 7:00 P14 PRESENT: Commission Members Howard Larson, Jim Brown, and Sharon Anderson, Planner Liz Stockman, and Deputy Zoning Administrator Linda Houghton Acting Chair Anderson opened the meeting. Anderson made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye. Brown made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1996, regular meeting as presented. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Due to the absence of Zoning Administrator Hale, Anderson suggested postponing discussion of lot sizes to the next regular meeting. The Commission concurred. Rent Roessler presented his revised concept plan for Parkside 3rd Addition. The revised plat shows that the high density housing along County Road 19 has been removed and the property will remain B-3 zoned. There are a total of 344 single family lots. Blocks 4- 16 on the plat (237 lots) have various frontage widths ranging from 75'-90'. Lots sizes also vary, averaging 12,359 square feet. Blocks 1-3 located on the proposed golf course (107 lots) average 18,904 square feet. City Planner Liz Stockman stated that it is impossible for the City to create a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the concept plan without annexing the portion of the golf course located in Frankfort Township. Stockman indicated the City cannot proceed with the PUD until the annexation process is completed. Roessler explained that the current owners (Roman and Donna Becker) have petitioned for the annexation of the 59.6 acres of property to the City of Albertville. He anticipates that the process of annexation should be completed within 90-120 days. Commissioner Brown questioned whether the EAW previously completed for the withdrawn preliminary plat is adequate for this new concept plan with a significant amount of new land and housing units. Roessler stated he is confident the EAW will not need to be revised, but that he has retained engineers if the EAW must be revised. Acting Chair Anderson stated that as proposed the clubhouse for the golf course project is located in Frankfort Township and, without annexing the parcel, the taxes generated from the clubhouse would belong to Frankfort. PLANNING S ZONING COMISSION February 26, 1996 Page 2 of 3 -_ Roessler stated he is willing to put the golf course in completely before he plats the residential area along County Road 19 if the Commission is concerned that the golf course will not become a reality. Acting Chair Anderson is opposed to lot sizes smaller than 12,500 square feet and 90' frontage. She .would prefer to see an R- 1 zone with no variances in lot size or width. Commissioner Brown feels there is no reason to rush into a PUD zone. He feels the area can be platted with the golf course and still stay within the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Larson is concerned that the portion of the concept plan recently annexed to the City will revert back to the City of Otsego during the appeal process. He wants the Commission to have an opinion on the likelihood of this happening before a decision is reached. Roessler requested that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council with specific reasons for the recommendation. Brown made a motion recommending that the City Council deny concept plan approval for the Parkside 3rd Addition as presented for the following reasons: (1) The plan does not meet R-1 restrictions on lot size and width. (2) The concept plan is premature because a portion of the plat is currently in Frankfort Township and another portion of the plat recently annexed to the City is under appeal and may revert back to the City of Otsego. (3) The portion of the plat currently zoned B-3 should remain as such, thereby, eliminating multiple family units. Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Larson made a motion to recommend that the City Council proceed with the process to annex the 59.6 acres of the Parkside 3rd Addition concept located in Frankfort Township. Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Commission reviewed the revised concept plan for the Summerfield Addition. The concept plan is designed as R-1 residential with all lots meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Anderson made a motion recommending the City Council approve the concept plan for the Summerfield Addition as presented. Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 26, 1996 - Page 2 of 3 Brown made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt ORDINANCE #1996-3 titled AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 300, 400 AND 2700 OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE (1988-12) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR REZONINGS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND/OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY. Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Planner Liz Stockman reviewed Ordinance #1996-4 with the Commission. Based on the attorney's recommendation, Paragraph (7) should be amended to read "(concept plan or preliminary plat)". Brown made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt ORDINANCE #1996-4 titled AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION A-300 OF THE ALBERTVILLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE (1) YEAR TIME LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PLATS OR SUBDIVISIONS IF PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR THE SAME OR ANY PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY with the amendment to Paragraph (7) as recommended by the city attorney. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Brown made a motion to adjourn at 8:30 PM. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Sharon Anderson, Acting Chair Linda Houghton, Dep. Zoning Adm. PARKSIDE 3rd ADDITION *7co CONCEPT DATA 75' Average in. 80' min. 90' min. Block Area Lot Area BLOCK Frontage Frontage Frontage Square Feet - Square Ft. Block 4 0 0 10 Block 5 9 175,643 17,564 Block 6 11 9 217,420 12,078 Block 7 2 5 172,445 10,778 Block 8 4 4 1 75,977 10,853 Block 9 5 4 0 77,100 9,638 Block 10 5 2 i 70,804 10,114 Block 11 0 81,346 10,168 Block 12 5 37 658,054 15,668 0 33 4 421,644 Block 13 0 11 11 11,395 Block 14 0 17 220,805 12,413 Block 15 0 4 220,805 10,514 051 Block 16 16 4 221,025 0 14 7 12,562 36 107 263,822 12,562 94 TOTAL BLOCK AREA = 2,929,172 square feet TOTAL LOTS: 237 AVERAGE LOT AREA = 12,359 square feet per lot CEDAR CREEK GOLF COURSE LOTS Block Lots Block Area Square Ft. Average Lot Area Block 1 Block 2 39 45 735,970 18,871 Block 3 23 874,820 411,990 19,440 107 2,022 87 p 17,912 Average lot area = 18,904 square feet Lot Area Average for Parkside 3rd Addition & Cedar Creek Golf Course Lots Total Block areas 4,951,952 s Total Lots 344 Square feet Total Lot Area Average 14,395 square feet PARKSIDE 3rd ADDITION MULTIPLE FAMILY CONCEPT DATA Multiple -Family, 8-Unit Dwelling 112 units Multiple -Family, 4-Unit Dwelling 24 units 136 units Total area in multiple -family unit blocks = 827,412 square feet Average area per multiple -family unit = 6,084 square feet 96105 February 27, 1996 TO: City Council e FROM: Kenco & Property Owners / X SUBJ: Petition for Annexation of 59.6 acres request to consider formal action Attached you will find a copy of a petition for annexation of 59.6 acres presently in Frankfort Township. The property owners are desirous of annexing their property into the city for the purposes of a golf course and housing development. You will find a seperate agenda item for starting the process by establishing a special meeting during April. February 27, 1996 TO: City Council FROM: Planning & Zoning Commission SUBJ: Establish Public Hearing for Annexation in accordance with M.S. 414.033, Subd. 2(3) April 15, 1996 @ 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers The Planning & Zoning Commission at their special meeting held February 26, 1996 at 7:00 PM recommended proceeding with the annexation of the Roman & Donna Becker property. Enclosed you will find a copy of the petition for such an action. You will find that the process of annexation related to the 60 acre law requires a public hearing 30 days minimum notice to the township and all adjacent property owners must receive a written notice for the public hearing. IN TIC MATTER OF The PETITION FOR Roman ?. & Donna Mae Becker for annexation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414,033, Subd. 2(3). TO: Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, and Minnesota Municipal Board 475 McColl Building 366 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1925 PETITIONERS STATE: It as hereby requested by Roman J. & Dcnna Mae Hecker, the sole property owners, to annex certain property described herein lying in the Town of Frankfort, to the City of Albertville, County of Wright, Minnesota. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except therefrom that part lying south of the centerline of Aright County Highway Number 118. The population of the annexation area is 0. Said property is unincorporated, abuts on the city's west boundary, and is not included within any other municipality. The area of land to be annexed is 59.6 acres, unplatted. The reason for the requested annexation is single family residential and golf course. All of the annexation area is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. The area proposed for annexation is not included in any area that has already been designated for orderly annexation pursuant to M.S. 414.0325. PETITIONERS REQUEST: That pursuant to M.S. 414.033, the property described herein be annexed to and included within the City of Albertville, Minnesota. Dated: Signed: D(-44,�Vo( V/ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 1996-6 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY (60) ACRES OR LESS OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. A petition for annexation under Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.033, Subd. 2(3) has been filed with the governing body of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, by all of the owners of the land contained in said petition, requesting that the following described land be annexed to the City of Albertville, Minnesota, to -wit: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except therefrom that part lying south of the centerline of Wright County Highway Number 118. (59.6 acres) Section 2. The area petitioned for annexation is sixty (60) acres or less unplatted, abuts on the city limits of Albertville, is located in the Township of Frankfort, and is not included within any other municipality. Section 3. All of the tract of land proposed for annexation is owned by Petitioner. Section 4. All of the annexation area is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. None of the annexation area is presently served by public sewer facilities. Section 5. The area proposed for annexation is not included in any area that has already been designated for orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.0325. Section 6. The annexation is in the best interests of the City of Albertville, Minnesota. Section 7. The petition for annexation was filed on March 4, 1996. An affidavit has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk stating that thirty (30) days written notice of the public hearing on the annexation petition was given by certified mail upon the Town Board of Frankfort Township and all adjacent landowners contiguous to the �> area to be annexed. A public hearing on the petition and this y��.' proposed ordinance was held on April 15, 1996, at Albertville City L' Section 8. The corporate limits of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, are hereby extended to include the property described in Section 1, and the same is hereby annexed to and included within the City of Albertville, Minnesota, as effectively as if it had been originally a part thereof. Section 9. The City Clerk is directed to file certified copies of this Ordinance with the Minnesota Municipal Board, the 35,-cretary of State, the Wright County Auditor and the Frankfort Township Clerk, and to publish a copy of the same in the North Crow River News, the legal newspaper of the City of Albertville. Section 10. The Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage, publication and filing certified copies hereof as set forth in Section 9 above and upor. formal approval by the State of Minnesota .municipal Board. AZCPTED BY THE ALBERT`IiLLE CiT CCUNC L THT_S 15TH DAY mm- 1995. Ma,.,cr w TT ST �_nua roug'tz-on, City Clerk 22Id O O . •, j Q tI, Cl In t O m _ 111 u� � n LL o M •Ed.j.0 S na U. `O Ul - 00 ' OEE o Ic 4 p _ — \ L � 1- I Q 41 113t/UOJ3t1 311/ i0 3N1 1 OS II SE NOI I J3S l0 \ j 0' • nl h •' _ 1 1 3111 JO 3NI1 1513 L CA M N �h _--- - 1 v \ --- 1 Rl � "t �1 ' En In -- in rn In it Z z J o f^ a• -� 00 oCC v\ 1 p V1 N R o.� wti 4 2 � a N N ---- --- ` - OO'DEE 3 . rT.60.O0 N'( 4 =SEN TO: Garrison Hale City Administrator Albertville, MN 79 1 13 S. FIFTH A VENUE. PC, BOY 1717 ST CLOUD, MN 56302-1717 612 252-4740 800 512-ub I i ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ARC,`+ITECTURE ENGINEERING FROM: Peter J. Carlson, P.E. City Engineer DATE: February 19, 1996 RE: Contour Map SEH No. A-ALBEV 9601.00 As development occurs in and around the City of Albertville, it is essential hs t at e knoally a swered how far sanitary sewer can be extended. During preliminary planerg, question gical Survey Map with using a contour map. What' readily available to us is a United ry States planning age of a 10-foot contours. This map is helpful when we are in the very preliminary project. However, we are at a point where the 10-foot contours is not adequate enough to provide the level of detail necessary in our planning. What is required is a 2-foot contour map. This map can be generated ot aerial The cost tphotograph. o generate area was flown in 1994, therefore, the contour map would be relatively the contour map is approximately $5 - $6 per acre, pl us the cost of surveyicurrenng to establish the ground roxi control. The area shown on the attached map is app000. ,'S80 acres. Therefore, the total cost for the 2-foot contour map would be approximately $20 , this area be North of I-94 is the area of most concern regarding sanital sewer extension. I suggest ted at a later date. The approximate cost completed initially, and the remaining area could be comp for this work would be $11,000. While it is difficult to call this 2-foot contour map essential to our planning process, the maps do allow us to provide better information regarding the sanitary sewer service area. ll ntour maps to I understand this is a significant cost. One way t recover ion of he City eTheocost to generate a small developers. A developer is usually only interested in p we were a 2-foot contour map in a small area could be as high as thi$1 would result5 per acre. f n a sav ngs for the City's contour map to the developer at $8 or $9 per acree, developer and allow the City to recover a portion of it's costs. SHORT ELLIOTT MINNEAPOLIS. MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON. WI LAKE COUNTY. IN HENDRICKSON INC. ST PAUL. MN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Garrison Hale Page 2 February 19, 1996 I would like to discuss this issue at the nest Council meeting. If the Council is interested. I will obtain cost figures, in writing, from the company providing the map. Call me if you have any questions. di g c: Linda Houghton. City Clerk (G:WLBEV,CORR',FB-19A.96) I p I — I • , ,J 950 11 � 1" ' � �I 958 969 1 1 O 35 94 lb Bm 963 _�-' `• Iv � "� T S uE V 0 i1972 ° �5 I ���- -, 79 adi--% 111111� i \ O\\i dC,B%1_ �\< - 11 `_ � �/ � ' � �. � (� _ _ -`• ON` ice' JN�\ - 957 a. _.95 Z, (Albertville : o 0 933 =gam •i - /i r, { /. ,Radio ii 967 — TdWerp\ 963 952 981- - - �- 975 1 Cl- c RPO— — BOl3NDAR ii / i � 955-78 \.-.I I, • o I _ o. _� �. - y I f-950 l , I St Michael ''t •(• CC oo I 9s7 1 961 9K I 928'; 8o liael-Alberto e M ;I •II Seh Micha -I • �l II 17, 1 .gin n�\ ,J.�.:v1 •((-l. _ it Fj-4: 10Frl F.5dZwI 1 : .. C0ur 1 L a w I CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ORDINANCE NO. / 7 y6 AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET SEWER ACCESS CHARGES AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES, AND DESIGNATING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH CHARGES. 3 The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota ordains: SECTION 1. DEFT TONS. .For the purpose of this ordinance, the following words, terms I and abbreviations shall have the meanings set out below, !unless the context specifically indicates otherwise. i Sub.11. "CITY" means the City of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. Sub. i2. "OWNER" means an individual or entity holding legal title to property within the City of Albertville. Sub.:3. "PUBLIC MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY" means a water distribution system owned or operated by the City or owned or operated by a Joint Powers organization to which the City belongs. Sub.i4. "CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM" ;Weans any part of the I network of sanitary sewer connections and pipes, including the sanitary sewer treatment plant located i within the City of Albertville, or any lines outside of the City of Albertville but which connect to and are serviced by the Albertville sanitary sewer treatment plant. Sub.i5. "SINGLE -DWELLING" means a residential building intended for occupancy by one family. Sub.6. "MULTIPLE -DWELLING" means a residential building intended for occupancy by more than one family. Sub.7. "DWELLING UNIT" means that portion of a residential building intended to be occupied by only one family. I SECTION 2. ACCESS CHARGE FOR SEWER AVAILABILITY (SAC Charge), 77 !The City Council shall have the power to set, by resolution, the amount required to be paid by an owner ;for connection to the City sanitary sewer system ("SAC !charge"). The City Council shall have the power to set 1 02-21-1996 04:21PM FROM Radzwill & CouriLaw Offic TO 49732100 P.03 a ifferent charges for residential and non-residential onnections, and shall have the power to change the basis n which such charges are calculated. Such charges may e changed by the City Council from time to time. :Unless therwise changed by Council resolution, the SAC charges nd bases for calculation shall be as follows: 1. Residential single and multiple -dwellings of four or fewer dwelling units, $2,200.00 per dwelling unit. 2. Residential multiple -dwellings of five or .more dwelling units, $2,200.00 per dwelling unit. 3. Non-residential connections shall pay a minimum of $2,200.00 (base fee) if the average daily water usage is equal to or less than 255.gallons. If the average daily water usage is greater than 255 gallons, the connection fee shall be the base fee plus the average daily water usage in excess of 255 gallons divided by 255, then multiplied by the base fee (e.g. if average daily water usage is 400 gallons, the connection fee would be $2f200.00 + {[400 - 255] J 2551 * $2,200.00 = $3,450.98). SAC fees for non-residential connections shall be estimated at the time of the building permit application based on the expected average daily water usage (as approved by the City Building Inspector), with a final payment or refund to be determined and paid within nine months of occupation of the building. Determination of final payment or refund shall be based on the formula detailed in this paragraph using the average actual daily water usage for the six monthsimmediately following occupation of the building. The City Council shall have the power to set, by resolution, the amount required to be paid by an owner for connection to the Public Municipal Water Supply ( "WAC charge"). The City Council shall have the power to set different charges for residential and commercial connections, and shall have the power to change the basis on which such charges are calculated. Such charges may be changed by the City Council from time to time. Unless otherwise changed by Council resolution, the WAC.charge for a residential or non-residential connection shall be $200.00. 2 02-2,1-1131=6 0-4: 21PP1 i F=Orel Pa.d=wi 1 1 1 Cour iL.aw Of : _ TO <:11:-^7211Q0 F,'3� I i SECTION 4. USE OF SAC & WAC CHARGES. IAll SAC charges shall be credited to the Albertville Sewer Fund. Such funds may, as determined by Council resolution, be (used to offset costs incurred in the expansion of the City's ;sewer treatment plant, installation or maintenance of existing ,or future sewer lines, general sewer operating costs, general sewer maintenance costs, or any debt service incurred in the ;past or to be incurred in the future to finance the above described sewer expansion, operation or maintenance, or any combination of the above. Nothing in this ordinance shall act Ito revoke the prior pledge of such charges to debt service funds issued to fund sewer improvements. WAC charges shall be ;credited to the bond debt service funds to which they have ;been pledged. Upon retirement of said bonds, WAC charges may The used for water improvement or maintenance purposes as the !City Council, by resolution, deems necessary. i SECTION 5. TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. All SAC and WAC charges shall be paid when a building permit application is submitted to the City. No building permits ,will be issued prior to payment of SAC and WAC charges. !Payment shall be in cash or by check acceptable to the City ;Clerk and/or Administrator. SECTION. 6. UNPAID CONNECTION CHARGES. :With respect to any owner who connects to the City Sanitary Sewer System or Public Municipal Water Supply without paying leither a SAC or WAC charge, such unpaid charges shall be certified, by the City Council under applicable state statutes, to the County Auditor with taxes against the ;property so connected for collection as other taxes are �co.11ected. SECTION 7. RESERVATIO_N. ,This ordinance in no way precludes the City Council from adopting additional ordinances imposing connection charges in ;lieu of assessments, or other such ordinances relating to ;,connection or service charges with regard to the City Sanitary !Sewer System or Public Municipal Water Supply system, nor does ;this ordinance preclude the City from assessing to property ;owners the costs related to the installation of water and sewer lines, trunk mains and other sewer and water related facilities installed by the City or a Joint Powers entity. 3 0-2-_1-1'D96 0 4 : -2 ZFN FROM Rad=,.ui 1 1 I C-our iLaw Off is TO 497 c 100 P . 05 SECTION 8 —EFFECTIVE DATE. £his ordinance shall be effective upon Council and publication in the official Passed this day of March, 1996. 1 City 'Clerk (Seal!) i Mayor 4 passage ;by the City City newspaper. FPCM Pad_wi I I I Lour i Law Off i TO 497 7 2100 P.02 i MEMORANDUM TO: GARY HALE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 7K FROM:I MIKE COURT, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: ECONOMIC IlE'VELOPMENT/LOCAL EFFORT TIF DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1996 As we discussed recently, there have been several inquiries to the City by Craig Anderson, the realtor representing Cohen Development Company, as to the types of financial assistance the city Ican offer as incentives to industrial -related businesses considering Albertville as a potential location. While Anderson has been in contact with several distribution companies who are interested in Albertville, a 1995 amendment to the TIF laws has wiped out the City-s ability to TIF any development except an actual manufacturing development on property enrolled in the Green Acres program (i.e. distribution and related uses cannot be TIFed). As y©u are aware, the property where Cohen wants to develop an industrial park is currently enrolled in Green Acres. Anderson has asked to City to look at other financing options. Because the City does not have a current source of funds to dedicate to utility extension, road improvements and the like, it appears that the only available source of financing would be the "local effort TIF." The term local effort TIF is somewhat misleading. Under a standard TIF, the City takes 100% of the increase in taxes on a parcel of land that is developed under the TIF program --the county and school district have no say in the matter. Under a local effort TIF, a formal TIF is never established, but the City, county and school voluntarily agree tc dedicated all or a portion of the increase in taxes from the developed property to help pay for infrastructure, etc., under the theory that without financing for the infrastructure, the development would not otherwise happen. In light of the relatively quick answers sought by potential businesses considering the Albertville area for a business location, it is my recommendation that if the City is;open to the ideaof providing local effort TIF financing, the City, should seek the approval of the county and school district as to the concept of the local effort TIF as soon as possible. If the concept is approved, Albertville would be in a position to work with potential businesses with the understanding that if the numbers make sense, the county and school district will likely go along with the proposal. This would significantly reduce the time necessary to set up a local effort TIF and would provide some certainty to both the City and the potential business. :If the City is interested in pursuing this matter, I would suggest that either Steve Bubel of Kennedy & Graven or Mary Ippel of Briggs & Morgan be consulted as to the statutory authority of 1 02-25-1996 12:00FM FROM RadzwiI1 2. Louri Law Offi 1C 497(32100 P.27 the county and school district to enter into a local effort TIF. Onceithis authority is confirmed, a committee should be appointed to approach the school district and the county regarding the concept in general. I recommend that committee be composed of one council member and the City Administrator, at a minimum:. 2 70 February 27, 1996 TO: City Council FROM: City Clerk SUBJ: Establish Copier Procurement Committee We have in the 1996 Budget a dollar amount for a replacement copier. Our present copier is a 1990 Copier and was purchased used. At the time of this writing, we are working with the copier by nursing it along. It is time to modernize and update by purchasing a new copier that will double side copy, sort, and the like without an operator being present constantly. It is my suggestion that we invite copier representatives in and have loaner copiers left on -site to try. Recommend establishing a committee of at least one council member and myself to coordinate a process with our findings and recommendation coming back to the council. The process will likely take two plus months do test trials. FcB Z3. '9e 02 �J9PM MINNCCMM PrGINGRD..ss1I4-Q59.0W0 Aw BLOOMINGTON - 8140 26TH AVE. S. 0100. 53425 $54-w" es Vv pAt3IlYQ AGREENti An Company BLUVE - 725 N. HWY. Ia. 35434. 794 44M ri ❑ ADD ONTO EXISTING; BILLING D>rtESB SELL PLAN LZNO= r ❑ MID Q 1 MONf NAME _ �J ,) QUARTERLY ❑ 6 MOK► /N MI -ANNUALLY C, 12 MONTHS Cl SE ADD L E / LL SS3 -Gib ❑ ANNUALLYl G� 4 4'7-i , .3 � xrivH DAB . SALES CON'rA = I PHC SERVICE CONTACT A•�►i �l !"�' PHO s 6/z�g 9?- 33�� FAX u �}� — CR&DPr wPPROvwL. x BILL M CONTACT L �� hb(dl�� PHONE s � /�¢4 7' FAX 0-4 141-11e- EQUIPMEVT ggyTAL 1L'CIiARACTER EQc7iP!NEa�I'T AODE PHONE * I CAP CCDE a< A1RTL1, END USER Uavi HAS BASIC SERVICE •aLv��ur� ONLY CALL OPTIONS TOTAL . I I I i s: j COMMENTS I• Aj �I �� � � � � I OTHER C?LARGcS TRADE IN CREDIT SUBTOTAL A ` (THIS PAGEI SUBTOTAL B (ATTACHED PAGES) TAX j BUSINESS .kCCOUNTS MUST BE SIGNED BY AUTHCRIZ=D CORPORATE- OF-iCER. P.AR `!ER OR PROPRIETOR. SECURITY DEPOSIT I HAVER --AD ;AND AGAEL I,O.-F�i�?8;v1S�t�vD-e.3v{iiiaONS�'Rc�1I7iA•3� ,iCrld S7DF5 r.E ZrIS PAGING N�� N0SERSTANI) THIS 1S A Nt�N CrA`CELASLL CONTP.ACT. i - TQi1"���'''�' -2j— TOTAL PAYNI NT FEB 23 '36 03:45PM MINNCOMM PAGING P.2 Pine City MORRISCN KANABEC 0 MIUE IACS ' • Royalton % BURNE17 Rice H ` Milaca i tephen • o - o 0 • Sauk Cen Sauk Foley �� ISANii Rush POIK City5awte:Rapids BENTON Princeton e i g • c St.Joseph • Bradford St. � Oud .1 SHERBURNE d North Branch` BA Cold Spring Cl1 r Lake Zimmer :an • Crown • B� Lake • Biker • 014AGO r•St. Croix Rice Lake STcARNS Luxemburg East Bethel 0 W`.omin9 • Paynes to Elk River !Monticello WR(GHT A lwd er I•Lake t elm • KANDIYOHI Annandale • MEEKER •' Albertvill Ano1Ca •Sotnmerset; • WA6NINGTON DUNN Vew Ri nd West Albion Buffalo .� Osseo. ■Blaine ,pWillmar � Litchfield • Cokato white B Lake. Summer ST. IX Dose! Howard Lake rooklyTl Park4p RAMSEY •Hudson • Ro • Baldwin Menomonie HENNEPIN �d�, ms ;, D Winstea Minnea oXis0 St Paul • • I • Cgttage Grov ver Falls Hutchin on , r` a Bloomington Eagan RENVI(lE gs �%Preston ncoc• �a'�• S1iaAro ee �� • • CARVER tior Lake • *Apple i alley % • Ellsworth S d Rosemount SCOTT New Market DAKOTA %% PIERCE ,ue ngton New Pr • •Fnrming[on - tveIc�"►. SIB E' _ • � • �. PEPM nthra Gaylord R+aterfor •Cannon Fallse>u p St Thomas • llla Like�� eP� Monlgomet}+• Northfield t7 City REDWOOD NICOUT GOODHUE � St. Peter • Le Sueur Shteldes alle RICE Zumbrota New Ulm 0 • Itemron ' If SUEUR Faribault WABASHA '% BROWN • CIE DODGE • blanl�atQ wASEG1 i RUE EARTH 0 Rochester I I Owatonna t 1 1 Twi'm11 C i ti"e S Paging CL--06At- Frequency- 454.225 S�sy 1995 -Concvp may be Zened Sv iemia vehicles, butkikC, unumW objects and dt=cc from lamLu cl '1s February 27, 1996 TO: City Council �� FROM: Public Works Committee `'"f SUBJ: 1979 Hustler Model 285 w/cab - Surplus & Sale We are ready to request authorization to surplus and sell this piece of equipment. Recommend advertising and receiving sealed bids for consideration at the City COuncil meeting of April 1, 1996. 1 Norwest Banks ' _ bawESr BANKS Sixth and Marquette 5 718 Minneapolis, MN 55479-00 9 O O O 5 O 21 First Distribution.. Your Verified TotaL Loss Amount i s: $,31.083.51 By $************1C.253 DoLLars and 46 Cents o the order of: CITY OF ALOEFITVILLi ATTN LINDA HOUGHTON 02/2211996 ' 17-1/91� Amount S****10.r253.46 Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. 177'1ichaet A Grafill Signature may be computer generated Void after 180 days 118000 50 2 L1i' 1:09 L0000 L9': 39 7 2 7 L 546911' cncLo.s?a is tie first payment o-f the settlement re3ch?d with ?iaer Jaffray in connection vith the Litigation invoLvin the Pioer Fun.as. Inc. :nstitutionaL Government Income P3rtf3Lio Litigation. This first iynant rearesents aaout 25 oercent )f the orineioal amount that you wi LL receive. You shouLd rec-�iv„ .your next oay'ment in ^veeen.3er or January 1997. Tnat payment viLL reoresent aoount 5) percent of the principaL amount that you riLL receive. You shouLa then receive payments in �u:;ust 1Q97 and August _acn of tliese o.3yments oiLL rearesent acout one—half of your remainin; orincioaL recovery. In addition to the orincipaL amount, .-iLL r- -nainin,; yayments -will include interest 3s me3surea from J•inu3ry 17,r 1v Ae are cantinuin) to aursue the cLaims asserta against K?i0 PP.3t 'Marwick anA wiLL keep you advised of any si nificant deveLooments in that trio. If ypu nave any iu?stions, oLeasN feel free to contact any o4 the Lawyers List?d below. Richard Loc'.tri a Greg; Fisn ein 3ciatz 'aZuin Lockridae irin'dal '1 holstein a.L.L.'. 22Z10 43Shin',t0n Square 1Js �ashin4tan Avenue South .Minneapolis, :41 5i'•O1 T a L : (o1?-)33'— V?rnan J. Vanaer 4eide :larianne r. Durrin mead. Sei f ert �. V anaer -,+ei rl.es 3 orafessionaL association Jne FinaciaL Plaza, suite ?y,00 123 South Sixth sheet Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tal: C�1 Z) 33a-1 5J1 GARRISON HALE/CITY ADMIN. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P 0 Box 9 ALBERTVILLE MN 55301 Buffai FYi 'i NOTICE OF: CONTINUED SCHED CONFERENCE Case Number: C5-96-000119 --- Re: CITY OF.OTSEGO - --- vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA You are hereby notified that the above matter has been CONTINUED for Sched Conference to Mar 8, 1996 at 2:15 p.m. before the Honorable Kim R. Johnson at the following location: Wright County Gov't Center 10 Second Street N.W. RM 201 Buffalo. MN 55313-1192 You are expected to appear at the above time and place fully prepared. K CHANGE IN DATE REQUESTED BY ATTY PETER SCHMITZ. CONFERENCE TO BE CONDUCTED BY PHONE AND ARRANGED BY ATTY SCHMITZ. IF YOU WILL BE PARTICIPATING, CALL ATTY SCHMITZ, #333-1831, WITH YOUR PHONE NUMBER. Feb 15, 1996 LaVonn Nordeen Court Administrator Phone: (612) 682-7546 By: 4ackie Knowles, Deputy Aw 113 S. FIFTH AVENUE. P. O. BOX 1717. ST. CLOUD. MN 56302-1717 612 252-4740 800 572-0617 Am E ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION February 12, 1996 RE: Albertville, Minnesota L&D Trucking, Inc. CSAH 37 and 19 Realignment SEH No. A-ALBEV 9603.00 Mr. Jan Henry Susee Susee and Lee, Ltd. 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield Bank Building, Suite 620 Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Susee: I have received you letter, dated January 31, 1996, regarding L&D Trucking, and I am aware of the issues you raised in the letter. At this time, I do not have the answers to all of your questions, but I am working on it. The City Council has authorized me to prepare a drainage study that would address the drainage issues affecting the L&D Trucking site, as well as the other properties along the proposed realignment of CSAH 37. I hope to have this study completed within a couple of weeks and present it to the City Council on March 4, 1996. At that time, I will be prepared to respond to the issues you have raised. If you have any questions, please call me. erely eter J. Carlson, P.E. City Engineer djg Enclosure c: "Ca nsQn _aleT ,City AdministratoF Mike Couri, City Attorney GAALB EV\9603\CORR\FB-08A.96 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ST. PAUL. MN MINNEAPOLIS, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI MADISON, Wl LAKE COUNTY, IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER OJNT Y C� WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 13 N Wright County Public Works Building 00 O 1901 Highway 25 North -21 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 7855 Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone (612)682-7383 Facsimile (612) 682-7313 TO: Wright County Cities and Townships FROM: Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer DATE: February 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Service Fees for Transactions WAYNE A. FINGALSON, P.E Highway Engineer 682-7388 VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E. Assistant Highway Engineer 682.7387 RICHA.RD E. MARQUE= Right of Way Agent 682-7386 A topic that was discussed today by the Wright County Board was the subject of service fees paid by Townships and Cities for materials purchased from the Wright County Highway Department. It appears that the service or handling fee which was set by the Wright County Board effective l/l/92 may not be completely understood by all parties involved. This 10 % fee up to $25.00 was intended to cover the County cost of ordering, stocking, storing, and loading, along with administrative costs. Although this fee works well for most transactions, it is felt that a more equitable change is needed. Effective April 1, 1996, we will begin a new service fee of 5 % (which will be added to the unit price of any material sold by the County) for all transactions with the Townships and Cities. We feel that this change will be more equitable for all and will benefit some Townships and Cities even more than the previous policy. If you have any concerns regarding this proposed policy change, please contact either me or your County Commissioner prior to 3/12/96, when the Transportation Committee will meet to discuss this issue. Thank you. pc: County Commissioners Wayne Luetgers, Shop Superintendent Nila Ellis, Highway Accountant Virgil Hawkins, Assistant Engineer js Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer February, 1996 'III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII City Of Albertville 5975 Main Ave/City Hall Albertville, MN 55301-9776 Dear Valued Customer, We now have a new name: Lucent Technologies. Lucent Technologies Bell Labs Innovations Patricia F. Russo President Lucent Technologies, Inc. Business Communications Systems Room 3C150 211 Mt. Airy Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 As you probably know, AT&T plans to split into three separate, totally independent companies: a communications systems and technology company we are launching with the new name Lucent Technologies; a communications services company which will retain the AT&T name; and a computer systems company named NCR. What you have known as AT&T Global Business Communications Systems (GBCS) will be part of Lucent Technologies. And, as part of our renaming, GBCS will now be known as the Business Communications Systems unit of Lucent Technologies. The word Lucent means "glowing with light," and "marked by clarity." To me, that suggests clear thought, brightness wid energy. I believe that perfectly characterizes our company, our people and the way we do business. Though our name has changed, we continue to be committed to serving our global markets and to providing the same quality products and customer service, with the same professionalism and integrity, you have come to know and expect. Also, we will continue to provide the best in communications and networking systems and solutions expertise to all our customers, no matter how large or small. Lucent Technologies will include Bell Laboratories, so that we may continue to both provide you with investment protection for your communications equipment and leading -edge technologies to help make your business even more competitive. We deeply appreciate the confidence you have shown in our ability to provide the Finest products and services, supported by a customer service organization that is unmatched in the industry. You can be sure that all of us at Lucent Technologies are committed to serve you in a way that is worthy of your continued confidence and support. Sincerely, aX �y J n AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS WHEREAS, the City of Albertville ("City") has improved 50th Street within the City of Albertville, and has provided for storm water drainage via catch basins, outflow pipes and drainage swales on a portion of said project; and WHEREAS, one of said outflow pipes drains upon land owned by Richard F. Miller and Bonnie J. Miller (the "Millers"), thence draining through a sodded Swale to a natural pond; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained a permanent easement for the installation of said outflow pipe and a temporary easement during the installation of the sodded swale on the Miller Property; and WHEREAS, the City and the Millers desire to clarify any outstanding easement issues related to said outflow pipe and drainage Swale leading to said pond; THEREFORE, the City and Millers hereby agree as follows: 1. The City shall pay the Millers $1,000.00 in exchange for the attached written easements, both permanent and temporary, and in exchange for such other consideration as contained in this agreement. The City shall install a drainage pipe extension of approximately 25 to 30 feet rfom �Ze existing drainage pipe \ currently on the Miller property. 1 2. The City shall, at its cost, perform the following work on the Millers' driveway: a. Remove existing driveway at a point to be saw cut 22 feet from the back of the existing sidewalk. b. Reshape the driveway base to a straight grade from sawcut to back of sidewalk. C. Install new bituminous from expansion joint on sidewalk on the west to the existing driveway edge on the east. d. All work to be performed when weather and load conditions permit (approximately May 15th to June 1, 1994) 3. The City shall waive the fee and escrow deposit for the Millers' proposed application to request planning commission approval to build an additional garage on the Miller property, provided the Millers make said application with the City by September 30, 1994. Said waiver in no way assures or guarantees that the planning commission will recommend approval of said request, nor does it assure or guarantee that the Council will approve any potential recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Millers understand that such a 4. 5. 0 request shall be this nature, andtreated no different regulations that rent from shall apply toll City ordinances requests said request. s and land use The Millers hereby causes le action thelease the City the installation h y may haVe against nst from the and all claims swale, the drainage the above or Property as of storm mentioned drainy relating to the install a result of City . water across age pipe and installation f the Millers,rovements the M' s to 50th street, The Of driveway obstruct the all take noand s flow of water action to This document and the Millersmbod.ies the Dated; to said pond terfere or otherwise entire CITY Or 1994. ALBERTVIL MaYor Cle 1(9 CAROLYN M. E~` � R NOTARY PUBLIGMINNESOT�� WRY COUM '».A..`n' Ex'res Jan. 17, �».�..dftj agreement between the Cit Y �4� Ofct,VIL Icirh �j ��--F C_ ...J;,/cam►— �S .�07 At ap Av,kf 50, �-- / 2S /2 T,x 7_ /2.s